That noble father who overlooks all of us from above, the great, FINALLY ABOLISH AVIATION agency is, according to an AOPA note, "encouraging" LSA manufacturers to get going to install not just one, but both new techno gadgets, the ADS-B and angle of attack indicators.

Just what gen aviation needs, and in particularly the Light Sport end of the market is more expensive and mandatory techno gadgets. One of the hopes a decade ago was that by being simpler the new Light Sport designs might be cheaper and thus attract some new pilots at the low end. There hasn't been much success on this since new LSA's cost over $100k and some pushing $150k.
And human nature being what it is, despite what anyone says they want, the real spending in the market place often seems to be the deluxe model of anything from cell phones to low end airplanes.

Someone is always going to just not be able to survive without that granite countertop in their kitchen if their neighbor or Mother in law has one. Or glass cockpit or I watch.

Me thinks the whole LSA movement has been a failure. I am hoping that a reg rewrite can allow exp avionics etc into mass airplanes. It makes so much sense, which is why it will probably fail.

In my opinion, the LSA movement cannot be called a "failure" because there are many new pilots training in LSA who probably would NOT have gone into flight training otherwise. Many of today's affluent younger people turn up their nose at ratty, smelly old 152s and 172s, but are happy to pay more money to train in the slick new LSA. There are two LSA-based flight schools in the DFW area that are averaging flying each of their LSA trainers 80+ hours per month. Ironically, very few of the "traditional" flight schools in the area offer training in LSA, and wonder why their business is drying up, and their rental "fleet" (typically 1-2 older 172s) is averaging well under 40 hours per month...

2) The 10-year history of zero medical-related accidents from Light Sport pilots paved the way for current legislation that proposes to do away with the 3rd-class medical for many more pilots.

We can all gripe about how expensive LSA are, but frankly, it's our own fault. When some designs came to market that were priced in the $45-50K range, had decent flying characteristics, and were equipped for basic VFR, we all stayed away from them in droves. Other mid-tier designs came out priced in the $80-90K range with basic instruments and radios, and sold only a very small number of planes. Some of those were pretty cool airplanes. But instead of migrating to the cheaper end of the spectrum, all the purchasers (and flight schools) flocked to the higher-end airplanes (CT-LS, Remos, $150K Cub-a-likes, Sport Cruisers, etc). And even in those airplanes, when faced with the choice between basic steam gauges and minimal avionics, or full glass panels with all the bells and whistles, customers overwhelmingly opted for the most expensive versions they could get. At least one LSA importer told me that they have NEVER sold even a single "steam gauge" airplane - every one goes out the door with at least one (and often two) Dynon Skyview systems installed.

Having said all that: If the only benefit most of us get from the LSA movement is the removal of the 3rd-class medical, we will all have benefited immensely!

Not arguing or picking a fight with anyone. I suppose it is just a matter of perspectives.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a proposal for AOA installation requirement or ADSB compliance. I certainly do not consider either "gadgets". The total cost of both for a LSA is probably less than $7500 for installation in a new 100-150 thousand dollar airplane.

I understand that the U.S. Navy has considered AOA an essential instrument for decades, but then, what do they know?

Personally I see the AOA as a big safety factor for what I consider a marginally trained and experienced group of pilots. I see the ADSB a big safety factor for both them and the more highly trained/experienced numbers of us who will share airspace.

Whether LSA is a success or failure is for each of us to judge. In 2010, there were 627,000 +/- active certified pilots in the U.S. of those there were 3682 holding exclusively sport ratings. In 2013, those numbers were 599,000 and 4824 respectively.

The world and aviation is moving steadily into the 21st century. The reluctance and resistance of members of GA to come along has more to do with the demise of same than any governmental regulation. At least, that is my crazy opinion.

Jgreen

Not to be an a$$, but the FAA isn't killing GA (new pilots) -- apathy is. Why bother? No, seriously: Why? You have to live / love to fly. Automotive transportation (especially compared to the "old days") is convenient. Air carrier service is relatively convenient. Renting a car at your destination is easy. Small airports that's got you really close are being shut down due to a combination of ego, whiney a$$ NIMBY's, and real estate developers. Don't get me wrong, cost is always a factor. Stating that the FAA is the only thing (or even the primary thing anymore) is extremely shortsighted. Not only that, but we use the FAA to try and keep airports open other groups want to close!

Apathy is a big one though. I was going to help a good friend (or 20) learn to fly. They look at the requirements, not the money but the the work, and they lose interest. Why bother when it's almost as convenient (unless you count on somebody stepping into a turboprop immediately) to drive 90%+ of the time or use air carrier service? Too much effort for too little utility in our hobby. Hop in the car -- or the big aluminum taxi -- and get there in roughly the same amount of time.

That's your killer right there. Maybe if we could get more people soloing, to get the rush, it would level out from the "love to fly" part. Too many smartphone addicted people don't want to bother in today's instant gratification society.

Seems to me on the training side -in this neck of the woods people still seem to prefer to train in a 172 (either vintage planes or later models) compared to LSA options. Especially for smaller training operations / clubs.

Me thinks that the concept of LSA certainly had merit. But currently I don't see LSA's having an impact.

I actually think the "rebuilding" of older vintage planes making much more sense. May not fly $$$ by the Vref book, but compared to new (LSA or other) it can give you a pretty sweet plane in the end.

Gary,

I couldn't agree more!! There is a nice variety of Champs, Cubs, Taylorcrafts, Luscombs,etc. that can be had for less than $40,000, who in their right "check book" would want to spend $150,000 on a LSA that has little, if any more, utility.

With less than 5,000 sport pilots over this period of time, I'm in the group that considers the sport category a failure. You would have thought that the industry and the FAA would have learned something from the previous failure of the recreational license.

The reasons for the demise of general aviation are many and cumulative. There is no single or simple solution. If it survives, it will do so for only a tiny percentage of the population. HMMMMM, let's see; 600,000 licensed pilots in a country of over 318,000,000 people. I calculate that as .02%, two tenths of one percent of the population. Seems we have already "made it.".

Jgreen

I think the LAS market and Sport Pilot have been a moderate success. But not the way many intended.
I know many flight schools are using LSAs for PPL training; which lowers costs.
FAA has learned extensive lessons about what works and what does not. Most of this has gone into the ARC Part 23 rewrite.
So, did it bring back everything. Nope.
Has it helped yes.
Is it the panacea many claimed it would be. Nope.

Like many things, it is a mic of positive and negative.

Tim

Tim,

So, we can take that as a definite maybe.

Jgreen

Lots of relatively new manufacturers survived the worldwide recession and are selling modern technology, clean sheet designs. They may not be making thousands of them in a year, but they're doing a steady business that grows a little each year. I'm not sure how that can't be judged a success.

The market for a new LSA plane isn't the same as the market for a $150k used Bonanza. They want new tech, they want the new car smell, and they don't need a long-haul cruiser. It's the 21st century version of the same demographic that was buying Champs and Cubs in the 50s.

While there may be fewer than 5,000 "new" Sport Pilots, there are a LOT more pilots with higher ratings that choose to exercise only the Sport Pilot privileges. That's what prompted me to get back into flying after a 30+ year hiatus. I know at least 3 other pilots in the same boat, along with several who now have their Private certificates, after originally obtaining a Sport Pilot certificate.

Unqualified success? I don't know anyone who would say that's the case.

Abject failure? Methinks not this either.

As Tim Spear said, it's a mixture of the two.

But if the only thing that comes out of it is the repeal of the 3rd Class Medical, it will have been a success in my book...

It's not about instant gratification, it's just simply about cost and actual time.

For a business owner, getting to that remote site or small town is a huge seller and advantage with flying yourself. Or, getting home the same day to eat dinner with the family.

For a millennial, there's a very small chance they're flying into Dickinson, ND or Texarkana. They're flying to San Diego, San Francisco, New York City, Las Vegas, etc.

In no way will a Cessna 172 compete with the airlines in both time and money. Right now, if I wanted to goto Nashville I could drive to LAX in 2-2.5 hours and catch a direct. 4 hours and $550 later, I'm on music row. In actuality though, most millennialls are living in the cities so a 2-2.5 hour deduction is likely in this scenario.

A V35 Bonanza, 9.5 hours @165 knots. Can't drink before or on the way and most likely too exhausted when I land to go out that night. Even if it were a good idea to me, there's no way I'd convince my friends to do it.

It's not instant gratification, it's just the idea of sitting on a small plane for 10 hours. That's crazy.

Millennialls are the most educated generation to date, lots of them are turning into young professionals. By that barometer, a highly educated generation with discretionary income is a prime target for GA. None of them are flocking to the airport. Why is that? Most of these millennialls just spent 4-6 years in college with no issue- I doubt 40 hours of flight time and 20 hours of ground study would be a huge burden on their ability to manage time.

There are a lot of activities available now that compete for their leisure time- unfortunately old ratty rentals aren't one of them. What's a license to fly cost now? $10-11k? A person can purchase a lot of sport bike, dirt bike, jet ski, gym membership, European vacation, high performance auto parts for that kind of money.

Not to keep going on and on, but I think a lot of it has to do with a semi-permanent mentality as well. Millennialls will live in 3 different cities every 4-5 years as well as change jobs on average what, 7 times in 5 years? Same reason they're opting for high density rentals for living spaces instead of homes with picket fences. They don't want any boat anchors attached when they cut rope, which they have to repeatedly do in their professional lives.

The millennial generation is the absolute hardest generation for legacies to understand, interpret or market towards. Any marketing department will tell you that. A lot of industries that were once slam dunk are struggling to get millennialls on board.

Talking on the phone with another fellow BT member this afternoon, this scenario came up. I believe the quote today was, "With Millennials, it's about the destination, not the route getting there."

That was me, I think.
Think about flying from lifestyle perspective. How does the plane enable a lifestyle?
When you look through BT, you see a lot of threads dealing with members talking about how to make your spinner shinny. I pay someone wash the plane, I have never polished my plane, let alone my car.

How many guys/gals who are under 60 do you see on a weekend waxing/polishing their car? The short answer is not many, the younger you are the less likely you are going to do so. Instead you are going to take your car through a car wash once a month and go surfing, play video games, hit a museum, hang with friends..... Basically you are going to go to a destination and enjoy life, not the car/plane ride.

Tim

Exactly like you said and I agree.

Coinciding with Tim, you can read articles with grocery stores having a difficult time getting millennialist to purchase groceries besides beer/spirits. I think something crazy like 70% (I want to say more) of Millennials dining is done at a restaurant/take-out.

Think about that, even things as simple as standing around a BBQ like we all used to do is being replaced by a micro-brew Pub Crawl and chipotle. When they actually do need to buy groceries, they prefer farmer's markets because again, it's a social environment and a way to connect with even the food and how/who it's/is growing [it].

See the coincidence? It's not so much about the food as much as it's about the social aspect of everything we do. That's another social prohibitive issue with flying, airports are not very social and if you do find your way onto an airport, god forbid you touch someone's airplane or get too close.