October 2012
A thesis by a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) graduate student on why we are flying less, and a move by the largest aviation “alphabet” group appointing a new senior vice president to “solve the problem,” have me thinking—not for the first time—that we aviators are not all that good at looking in the mirror, and maybe we need to reconsider what mirror, exactly, we gaze upon.
The thesis, by Kamala I. Shetty, was researched and written for a Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics at MIT under the supervision of professor R. John Hansman. Shetty’s objective was to explore trends “and to determine what drives and what hinders General Aviation activity.”
I congratulate Shetty on the work. It is well worth studying as it has created a brilliant snapshot about why we are flying less, and of the current state of General Aviation in its entirety.
Shetty surveyed more than 1,250 pilots, with the help of AVweb and other aviation media that housed her survey. Since this survey’s respondents weren’t randomly/scientifically selected, but rather “self-selected,” it’s entirely possible that those who chose to participate aren’t a wholly accurate representation of the GA community.
Even if the clarity of this particular mirror is in question, it’s still worth knowing the outcome of Shetty’s work. The survey concluded that rising (fuel and maintenance) costs, burdensome regulation, lack of understanding of aviation on the part of the nonflying public and the declining pilot population are the biggest challenges facing General Aviation.
The cost of fuel, the survey found, was reported as the most critical factor affecting flight activity; just shy of 80 percent of pilots surveyed said they’d quit flying if fuel prices rose to $8 a gallon. That figure rose to 90 percent if fuel hits $10 per gallon. Interestingly, the survey also found that respondents said they did not have enough time to fly.
Among the data collected in the thesis there are interesting bits that many pilots may not be aware of, for instance:
— “In 2011, General Aviation and air taxi operations represented 63 percent of all towered operations in the United States, while commercial aviation was responsible for 34 percent.”
— In 2009, “General Aviation generated 496,000 jobs and its total economic contribution to the U.S. economy was valued at $76.5 billion.”
— Between 2008 and 2009, there was a “20 percent decrease in jobs and a 21 percent decrease in total economic impact… There is also a significant decreasing trend in the active pilot population, along with steady decreases in GA flight hours and towered operations.”
Coming in first among perceived problems was money, with more than half of the respondents, 52 percent, pointed to high overall costs. “Nothing recreational is as expensive or as regulatory. I have owned and own both sailboats, powerboats and an airplane and the airplane is far and away the more expensive hobby,” one pilot said.
In second place for most-mentioned issue was regulation, with 34 percent concerned about government regulations in General Aviation. Responses included references to the TSA; complicated, changing or outdated rules; and increasing number of TFRs.
Shetty’s entire thesis is available as a PDF, which you can download—and read, which I believe is worth doing—at the following web address:
www.avweb.com/pdf/ICAT_KamalaShetty-Report.pdf
Meanwhile, although there is clearly no causal connection except in what is on my mind today, soon after Shetty’s study was released to the public, AOPA told its almost 385,000 members and the world that it had created a new senior vice presidential position to lead something it calls the Center to Advance the Pilot Community (CAPC).
“The center was created to stop the slow, steady decline in the number of certificated pilots in the United States and seek ways to stimulate growth,” AOPA said in a press release. Named to lead the CAPC effort is Adam Smith, who resigned his vice presidential position at EAA a few months ago. EAA is the second-largest aviation organization with approximately 130,000 members.
AOPA said it is committed to rebuilding the pilot population “by creating this entirely new division to be staffed with experts on research, building communities… by discovering what works, sharing that information… and using it to improve every aspect of the aviation experience, the center will change the future of General Aviation.” (Underlining is mine).
AOPA said the new initiative would help student pilots with its Flight Training Student Retention Initiative, a program that recognizes good flight training with awards and runs a flight training website. AOPA also said it would make Flight Training Field Guides available to help schools, instructors and students. It added that it has research into “successful pilot communities to help aviation enthusiasts nationwide create environments that get pilots flying and keep them flying.”
“We see a future that includes a more robust pilot community in which more people earn pilot certificates, pilots are more active, and the flying lifetime of pilots is extended.” AOPA President Craig Fuller said.
I certainly wish my former colleague Adam the best and congratulate him on his new job, but in the context of thinking about Shetty’s study I began to wonder about the nature of the mirrors aviators look into when being objective about self-reflection.
I’ll illustrate what I mean with a story I use in my work teaching at the University of Florida (Go Gators!):
First, I tell my students, in order to really understand anything—unfiltered by the personal and biological biases we each have—you have to train yourself to see what you cannot see. You need to learn to see what you can’t see.
Then I draw a chalk outline of an airplane on the blackboard, as seen from above. I mark “Xs” all over its wings, its fuselage and its tail. Everywhere except a small area behind the cockpit.
While I’m getting chalk dust on my hands, I tell my students that in World War II, soon after the United States joined the effort against the Nazis, Allied aviation losses were massive in sorties originating from Great Britain. The generals were concerned that if nothing changed, disaster was imminent.
They convened a conference to address the losses, inviting engineers and scientists to try to solve the problem. At the meeting, the Allied air forces commanders put up a diagram showing the entire amalgamated bullet and flak holes from the airplanes that had made it home safely.
I tap on my chalk drawing on the board and say, “that diagram looked something like this.” The story goes that one of the engineers told the generals that in order to help they needed to see the damage to the planes that had not returned from their missions.
The general angrily replied that those planes had crashed in France or into the English Channel with lives lost, and how the hell was he supposed to show him those downed airplanes?
“You have to learn to see what you can’t see,” the engineer is said to have replied, as he walked to the diagram, took out a mechanical pencil and began circling the areas where there was no flak or bullet damage. An area that was undamaged on the surviving planes was revealed. “Armor that area and more planes will come home,” he said.
The allies beefed up the area and losses dropped. Engineers might tell you that is part of why the Allies won the war.
The idea of “seeing what you can’t see,” seeing the undamaged aircraft skin instead of the bullet holes, is critical to a discussion of the downturn in General Aviation statistics in everything from hours flown to student pilot starts and completions. A downturn that, if extrapolated by an objective observer, invariably points to the end of flying as we know and love it.
We who love flying must begin to see what we can’t see. Rather than polling pilots on why they are flying less or leaving aviation altogether, we should be polling people who have never been pilots about whether they have ever considered learning to fly.
Face it. Most people have never even thought about learning to fly.
Instead of preaching to the choir of aviators, and the alphabet groups imagining expensive new initiatives (in addition to AOPA’s aforementioned new effort, didn’t EAA just launch a Young Eagles program for adults?) we should be selling aviation to people who are already involved in other recreational activities. It’s Marketing 101 to find similar market share and to sell to it.
You want to grow pilots? Erect marketing booths at boat shows. Do the same at recreational vehicle shows, horse shows, hunting or fly-fishing expositions and ski resorts. Don’t forget the motorheads at car shows. Oh, and work to establish airplane clubs at every high school.
Even in hard economic times, skiers spend thousands of dollars on weekends in the powder; boaters boat, sailors sail, fishers fish and the nation’s campgrounds are flush with RVs. And fuel costs are up for all of them, too.
Maybe some of them would dream of flying, if they knew such dreams exist.
And as to the thesis response regarding free time, I’m not a statistician but I believe we all lie when we don’t want to tell the truth. By that, I mean that folks who say they don’t have time to fly may be covering up what they really feel because admitting it may make them too uncomfortable.
I wonder how many of those responses regarding lack of time were really about not wanting to say that flying is horribly expensive and practiced in a regulatory environment that makes waiting around at the DMV seem like a happy vacation—to say nothing about admitting that flying takes focus, discipline and dedication to be any good at.
To quote one of Shetty’s respondents: “Why would anyone want to fly? What other avocation requires the same licensing, time, money, dedication, discipline, training, recurrent medicals, biennials, relationship with a hostile government agency, invasion of privacy, paperwork…?” It’s definitely time to take a very close look at the current damage to General Aviation, beef up some areas—and see our losses drop.
David Hipschman is a private pilot and aircraft owner. He teaches journalism at the University of Florida, once served as Director of Publications at EAA, and is the editor of the National Association of Flight Instructors’ print and electronic publications. Send questions or comments to editor@www.piperflyer.com.
