Pilots have needs; they'll tell you what they are.

Ever since I figured out that economics isn't really about money but, instead, about the way that people behave, based largely on incentives, I've started liking economics a lot more. The book Freakonomics opened my eyes to the really interesting kinds of things that economists do, like investigate the social and financial economy of inner city Chicago drug gangs, or look at the reasons couples stay married, or don't.

As I mentioned, much of the insight that economists gain on complicated questions is gotten by looking at what's in it for the people involved. And I think that pilots would be a fascinating case study. We do something really difficult, a little risky, breathtakingly expensive and poorly understood by our family and friends.

But apart from why we do it--I leave it to you to come up with your own answers on that count--I'm fascinated by the choices we make in our flying lives, the what we actually do. What airplane do we fly and/or buy? What kinds of trips do we take (if any)? Do we fly by ourselves or with the gang? Do we go IFR or VFR? Do we land at big airports or little? Some of these choices are clearly based on financial considerations. I would definitely be flying a PC-12 instead of a Cirrus if I had the resources to pull that off. Other questions, like single-versus-twin, are harder to crack. I know a lot of twin drivers like the added safety, a point that Richard Collins might contest, while others just like the additional useful load you get with most twins. In my book, the safety edge (if any) of a twin is not worth the extra money, while the useful load would be a big seller, if money were no option. (The PC-12 suffices on all three counts.)

Aviation marketers, who are supposed to be experts on why people want to buy things, or not, sometimes seem to me a little at sea about human incentives. Then again, they are in the business of selling the airplane or aviation product they have to sell, so maybe relentless persuasion is a tool that serves them better than understanding the potential client's needs. 

I'm really at a loss when it comes to products designed to solve what are perceived (by someone, I suppose) as needs that are not being met. Flying cars and, yes, flying motorcycles, are two such products that spring to mind.  I recently flew into Llano, Texas, with TCM's Keith Chatten in an SR22 (running on unleaded fuel, by the way), and while we were there, we though it might be nice to pop over to the best barbecue joint on the planet for lunch. We borrowed a car (free) from the FBO, drove to town, had a incredible lunch at Cooper's, and drove back. The flying car would have been better . . . exactly how?

On the other hand, XM weather is a product that satisfies a tremendous need, the need to know where the storms are so you can fly elsewhere! I shudder to think of how I approached IFR before XM, by relying on the good intentions of controllers along the way to steer me around the storms that I could not see. And I think of the Bose Headset X (comfy and quiet), the Garmin 696 (and 496 and so on), the Avidyne Entegra flat-panel avionics system in my Cirrus, PlaneSmart's shared ownership program, the CitationJet lineup, and so on and so on. The story behind all of these successes, and more, is that they satisfied a need and did it at a price that pilots were willing to spend to meet that need. 

So I'd advise designers, engineers and would be aviation entrepreneurs looking to provide pilots with something they don't know they need yet, to look and see just how pilots behave, what they complain about, and what kinds of proposed solutions they might be interested in to solve the problem they don't know they have yet. They'd find out two things: we pilots are a lot smarter than than we're given credit for, and the things you think we need are really just things you want to sell to us. We'll save our money, thank you very much, for those things we actually need (or at least want really bad).

Have I mentioned that PC-12?

Comments

[Phillip Peterson]

I need a two-place plane with 70 pounds of cargo that goes 200+ knots to be flown into any airport at any elevation (think Colorado) with a range of 1000 nm. I am not overly tall (5'10"), but I sit up straight and have short legs. Thus, I want headroom (high wing?) and adjustable pedals. Anybody listening? Cessna? Beech? Pilatus?

[GK...Grounded and Grumpy]

Getting a private certificate....challenging and fun. Getting an instrument rating....VERY challenging and more fun. Getting the FAA to give me back my 3rd class medical...apparently impossible in the absence of inhumanly perfect health. I want an FAA that thinks before it regulates....

[chuck h]

Best of luck on your medical reinstatement, GK

[Mike King]

Two-place, 70 lbs baggage, 200+ and high altitude TKO and operation? You mean a RV-7 with an I/O-360, CS prop and portable oxygen? Plus as an added bonus you can put the pedals anywhere you like since you can build to plane to your specifications.

[Jim Hanson]

" In my book, the safety edge (if any) of a twin is not worth the extra money, while the useful load would be a big seller, if money were no option"

Let's have this conversation again AFTER the author has had an engine failure. I've had 9 in nearly 30,000 hours--and you'll never think the same again about single vs. twin. And no, single-engine turbines are not the cure-all either--3 of my engine failures have been on turbines (one on a Cessna Caravan). It's not just ENGINE redundancy, either--I can't count the number of vacuum pumps and alternators I've lost.

You want a 200 mph 2 place airplane? The Wing Derringer would work for you.

[Greg]

I recently caught wind of a website that is putting together aircraft and performance specs that allows us to do apples to apples comparisons of aircraft and read both industry 'expert' and pilot reviews. I'm thinking, "why hasn't anybody else, like controller or trade a plane ever done something like this??" I'm excited to see what they have when it's all done. The site is www.ClassG.com