Pilot numbers are down, but aircraft numbers are flat. What's the right metric?

http://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/Statisti ... e-U-S.aspx

Still looks like growth in the fleet over the whole period, just in terms of numbers alone - but it's slowing in the last decade for sure. Are pilot numbers down per head of population, or down overall, or down indexed to some other variable? I would bet the number of pilots is still growing, when indexed against the growing cost barriers to flying.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - you can get stats to agree with most any result that suits.

The total value of the fleet would be interesting, the costs of ownership, as would the average age of the fleet, presenting more info in one place to give a more complete picture.

One other thing to consider, the number of aircraft will continue to decline over the next year. There has been this compulsory re-registration of aircraft. This had weeded out a significant number of derelicts that inflated the aircraft numbers.

Aircraft numbers are down 10K since 2000 but much of that is de-registration by the fed since they changed to the more frequent registration renewal requirement. I think. I guess more guys are keeping two or more airplanes eh? I dunno.

EB

rw2 wrote:
What's the right metric?

Sorry if this is not the specific GA Decline topic you were asking about, but...

IMHO the key metric is new pilot starts. There have been previous threads addressing this subject (I've contributed a couple of rants on the subject if I recall).

New pilot starts defines and quantifies the existence or non-existence of a future for GA. New pilot starts are what will reverse the "aging" of the pilot population. New pilot starts are who will buy all those newfangled futurama airplanes with the hybrid electro-nuclear-steam-rubber band drive. Today's new pilot starts are the ones who will keep EAA, AOPA and any other PAC or lobbying organization alive when all of us old-schoolers are equipped with feeding tubes or are distant memories on the airport photo wall.

Perhaps most importantly, new pilot starts today are the people who will vote against the anti-airport homeowner groups and real estate developer/vermin of tomorrow.

EAA figured all this out 20 years ago when they polled thousands of members, and asked what the most important priority was in aviation. The overwhelming response was where the next generation of pilots was coming from (followed closely by how the f**k they were going to afford to fly). The Young Eagles program resulted, and represents the biggest success in attracting new pilots in the last 70 years.

EZFlap wrote:Sorry if this is not the specific GA Decline topic you were asking about, but...

IMHO the key metric is new pilot starts. There have been previous threads addressing this subject (I've contributed a couple of rants on the subject if I recall).

Yeah, this is exactly the conventional wisdom that I'm questioning. I learned yesterday that aircraft in operation are near peak levels and GA operations per year are at or near peak levels. I can see where having many pilots makes for a more interesting aviation culture, but fewer pilots flying more hours and more airplanes is a dynamic I was just completely unaware of. It's really hard for me to take seriously the "decline of GA" when the airframes and hours have been basically flat-lined for 30 years (which, presumably is one reason why AOPA bangs the 'reduction in quantity of pilots' drum so hard).

That said, I do agree that new pilot starts matter. I've flown and volunteered and young eagles several times in Chicago and helped put together a Jóvenes Águilas de México event with Amigos de la Aviación de San Miguel here in Mexico. Maybe I'm trying to make something black and white that is really shades of grey. Airframes matter. Operations matter. Pilots matter. Asking which is the most important might be falling into a trap of asking the wrong question.

I think it costs 'only' roughly 20%-30% more to fly in constant dollars as it did in the 80's. (Used) planes are a lot cheaper now than they were back then. Gas is a bit more. Instruction is a bit more. Shop rates are quite a bit less. Parts are more.

I think the big glaring elephant in the room is that most people don't make nearly as much in constant dollars as they did back then- and combined with the other things that got a lot more expensive relative to income (housing, automobiles, education, health), GA as a past time is one of the items feeling the brunt of shifting priorities.

Battson wrote:...
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" - you can get stats to agree with most any result that suits.

....

Actually the statistics keeps people honest.
One can take the chosen number from one decade and compare to a chosen number from another decade and claim to see say a 40% (I just made that up..) reduction in new pilots. Statistics will tell you whether their number is biased and their claim significant (i.e. valid).