Guest Editorial: The Death of General Aviation?

[Ken Ibold]

Personally, I think the root cause of general aviation's demise is not necessarily connected to cost. There are plenty of costly pursuits out there that are becoming more popular. I think there are two issues: comfort/convenience and practicality.

Take a guy out of his Lexus and put him into a beat up trainer with lousy heat and no air conditioning and the smell of old sweat. Nice first impression. Lots of people wash out simply because light planes bounce around a lot and makes them uncomfortable. OK, maybe he sticks with it anyway, gets a certificate, and rents a newish airplane with OK avionics, lousy heat and no air conditioning. After a while of renting, he gets tired of his wife/family complaining about bumping around all the time, lousy heat and no air conditioning, and he washes out.

Maybe he sticks with it anyway for a while. After a few dozen hamburger runs and weekend trips to the beach, maybe he decides that the rental cars and hotel bills are taking the fun out of the weekend jaunts, and so he washes out.

Maybe the cost is no issue on any level. But after a while he gets tired of crawling around inspecting landing gear and getting into the cockpit with hands smelling like gas and being treated like crap by the FBOs because he's not buying 500 gallons of jet A, and being tired after dealing with the noise and vibration and stress involved in flying, and cleaning the puke out of the upholstery because his kid got airsick on a hot bumpy approach, and getting delayed by weather and showing up with the FBO closed, and poor mechanical reliability ... etc.

So after all this, maybe he decides to spend a hundred grand on an RV for traveling in comfort. Or maybe he just decides to fly first class commercially. Or maybe instead of a toy he can use twice a month he buys a ridiculously fast sports car he can use almost every day, or a yacht he can entertain clients on and write part of it off as a business expense, or maybe he decides there just aren't many places he really wants to GO.

No way it's all about cost, in my opinion.

 

[Everskyward]

Personally, I think the root cause of general aviation's demise is not necessarily connected to cost. There are plenty of costly pursuits out there that are becoming more popular. I think there are two issues: comfort/convenience and practicality.

Take a guy out of his Lexus and put him into a beat up trainer with lousy heat and no air conditioning and the smell of old sweat. Nice first impression. Lots of people wash out simply because light planes bounce around a lot and makes them uncomfortable. OK, maybe he sticks with it anyway, gets a certificate, and rents a newish airplane with OK avionics, lousy heat and no air conditioning. After a while of renting, he gets tired of his wife/family complaining about bumping around all the time, lousy heat and no air conditioning, and he washes out.

Maybe he sticks with it anyway for a while. After a few dozen hamburger runs and weekend trips to the beach, maybe he decides that the rental cars and hotel bills are taking the fun out of the weekend jaunts, and so he washes out.

Maybe the cost is no issue on any level. But after a while he gets tired of crawling around inspecting landing gear and getting into the cockpit with hands smelling like gas and being treated like crap by the FBOs because he's not buying 500 gallons of jet A, and being tired after dealing with the noise and vibration and stress involved in flying, and cleaning the puke out of the upholstery because his kid got airsick on a hot bumpy approach, and getting delayed by weather and showing up with the FBO closed, and poor mechanical reliability ... etc.

So after all this, maybe he decides to spend a hundred grand on an RV for traveling in comfort. Or maybe he just decides to fly first class commercially. Or maybe instead of a toy he can use twice a month he buys a ridiculously fast sports car he can use almost every day, or a yacht he can entertain clients on and write part of it off as a business expense, or maybe he decides there just aren't many places he really wants to GO.

No way it's all about cost, in my opinion.

+1.

Of all the people I fly as passengers, very few express any interest in the operation of the airplane at all, and of the ones who do, almost none talk about learning how to fly. It's a rare occasion when someone mentions that they are a pilot or that they have taken lessons in the past. I can't see cost being that much of an issue to most of these people. I'm guessing it's lack of interest first, then lack of time.

 

[dmccormack]

Ken -- an excellent summary and analysis!

As long as GA is sold exclusively as transport, it will lose for the very reasons you describe. Sure, I've had excellent experience flying from A to B and returning home in time for dinner. But not every time. In fact I've probably scrubbed more flights than taken when I *had* to be somewhere on time.

I've read three books about Lindbergh in the past few months, and a common theme in each is that while interest in aviation boomed because of Lindbergh (along with hue investments which disappeared with the crash of '29), the total number of passengers flying airlines, people buying airplanes, or pilots flying only increased after WW2.

That generation is passing, and the children of that generation are aging.

 

[Jaybird180]

... and that, precisely, was what LSA was supposed to offer.

Instead, >$100k mini airliners, carbon-fiber super bush, and hyper-dude accelerators are the norm.

In what LSA can you take 2+2+bags any appreciable distance? You can barely do that with many 'regular' 4-seaters.

 

[somorris]

As long as GA is sold exclusively as transport, it will lose for the very reasons you describe. Sure, I've had excellent experience flying from A to B and returning home in time for dinner. But not every time. In fact I've probably scrubbed more flights than taken when I *had* to be somewhere on time.

I agree Dan. There are better ways to travel than GA, if all you are doing is getting there. In order to go GA, you have to enjoy the journey. Otherwise, its not worth the cost.

I think the reason Ken could tell his story so well in his post is that he has been there and done that! Or at least that is what I read between the lines.

 

[steingar]

... and that, precisely, was what LSA was supposed to offer.

Honest and heartfelt apologies for being contrary (I seem to do that a lot) but the SP was developed to reign in fat ultralights. I really don't think the FAA gave a rats six about GA. If they did, they might have moved a couple digits slightly and made the weight limit sufficient for a C150, of which there are zillions.

 

[dmccormack]

I agree Dan. There are better ways to travel than GA, if all you are doing is getting there. In order to go GA, you have to enjoy the journey. Otherwise, its not worth the cost.

Exactly! And the only way to sell aviation to "the masses" is transport utility.

EAA gets it in that they aren't trying to sell exotic locales -- the focus is the airplane experience.

That is a much tougher sell with a much smaller market.

 

[Everskyward]

There are better ways to travel than GA, if all you are doing is getting there. In order to go GA, you have to enjoy the journey. Otherwise, its not worth the cost.

That's the way I feel about it too. I have never owned an airplane but when I look around at small aircraft on the ramp the one that always attracts me is the Super Decathlon. I think the thing that attracted me to flying is the kinesthetic sense of it, not the desire to go from place to place. I've never thought about buying an airplane for transportation. Part of it is that anything I could realistically afford would never be capable enough for me since I've been spoiled by the work airplanes. Plus, as far as travel goes, it's a BTDT situation unless you are talking about overseas.

 

[Anthony]

I think Ken is spot on also. I think you have to have it in your blood. You just really, really want to do it and think its cool to crawl around landing gear and inspect things and also love the mechanical aspects of flight.

 

[dmccormack]

Honest and heartfelt apologies for being contrary (I seem to do that a lot) but the SP was developed to reign in fat ultralights. I really don't think the FAA gave a rats six about GA. If they did, they might have moved a couple digits slightly and made the weight limit sufficient for a C150, of which there are zillions.

I'm sure that was part of the equation, but part of the sell of LSA was new pilots.

From EAA:

Sport Pilot is the new way to fly that is easier, more affordable, safe, and loads of FUN! Sport Pilot enables enthusiasts to learn to fly and gain access to aircraft in half the time and for half the cost of previous alternatives.

From AOPA:

In its comments to the rule docket, AOPA told the FAA that the Sport Pilot and Light Sport Aircraft proposed rule is a needed step forward to provide a lower cost alternative to the current private pilot certificate. AOPA also persuaded the FAA to accelerate issuing and implementing a final rule on the airman portion of rule, to allow sport pilots to fly some seven existing certificated aircraft (like a Piper Cub) that meet the light sport aircraft definition, using a driver's license for a medical certificate.
AOPA believes this rule will help many lapsed pilots return to flying and could have a positive effect on the cost of learning to fly, bringing new people into flying. AOPA said the agency should go even further and extend sport pilot privileges to recreational pilots. That would mean that recreational pilots could use a current driver's license to meet the medical requirements and that they could fly in Class B, C, and D airspace with the proper flight instructor endorsement. If adopted, AOPA's recommendations would effectively extend the benefits proposed in the sport pilot certificate to a much larger group of aircraft such as a Cessna 172 or a Piper Warrior.

From the FAA:

SUMMARY: The FAA is creating a new
rule for the manufacture, certification,
operation, and maintenance of lightsport
aircraft. Light-sport aircraft weigh
less than 1,320 pounds (1,430 pounds
for aircraft intended for operation on
water) and are heavier and faster than
ultralight vehicles and include
airplanes, gliders, balloons, powered
parachutes, weight-shift-control aircraft,
and gyroplanes. This action is necessary
to address advances in sport and
recreational aviation technology, lack of
appropriate regulations for existing
aircraft, several petitions for
rulemaking, and petitions for
exemptions from existing regulations.
The intended effect of this action is to
provide for the manufacture of safe and
economical certificated aircraft that
exceed the limits currently allowed by
ultralight regulation, and to allow
operation of these aircraft by certificated
pilots for sport and recreation, to carry
a passenger, and to conduct flight
training and towing in a safe manner.

 

[Ted]

Certification is the reason why we're still flying around in aircraft that were designed 50 years ago and why nobody certifies new airplanes.

Liability is the primary reason why legacy aviation is so expensive.

Then you have the low volume, which is influenced partly by cost, partly by the fact that some people want "new" and not "1940s tractor technology."

I agree with his overall sentiment, though. The experimental market has allowed plenty of aircraft to be built outside of certification and you do get a lot more plane for your money. Now, get rid of the 51% rule so that you don't have to spend the time building it, and you've got something that becomes downright viable. It's a slow process, though, and floodgates will not open. You still need to maintain the annual inspections, but there are a lot of ways that you can make it cheaper.

We're making baby steps in the right drection overall, I think.

 

[dmccormack]

Certification is the reason why we're still flying around in aircraft that were designed 50 years ago and why nobody certifies new airplanes.

I thought it was because they were designed by engineers with slide rules who added a fudge factor into all calculations?

 

[steingar]

The experimental market is truly indicative of why things are so expensive. One can easily spend a hundred AMUs on a number of the experimentals, and still has to assemble them, a formidable task.

 

[Ken Ibold]

I think the reason Ken could tell his story so well in his post is that he has been there and done that! Or at least that is what I read between the lines.

Nah, I would never drive a Lexus!

 

[Ted]

I thought it was because they were designed by engineers with slide rules who added a fudge factor into all calculations?

Whether new aircraft or old aircraft are better is another matter of debate (I know what my answer is), but the reason why so few aircraft are being certified these days is because the barriers are so high. As was pointed out, one can easily spend more money on the certification effort than on the R&D. Much like spending more money on maintenance than on fuel, that is pretty ridiculous.

 

[dmccormack]

Whether new aircraft or old aircraft are better is another matter of debate (I know what my answer is), but the reason why so few aircraft are being certified these days is because the barriers are so high. As was pointed out, one can easily spend more money on the certification effort than on the R&D. Much like spending more money on maintenance than on fuel, that is pretty ridiculous.

I agree -- but I think many of the older airframes were built with larger tolerances, thus longer lived.

Don't know if folks will be flying Antique Cirri to fly-ins 50 years hence.

 

[Ken Ibold]

Don't know if folks will be flying Antique Cirri to fly-ins 50 years hence.

Nope. They will, however, be tossing banana peels into the Mr Fusion on their personal jet packs.

 

[Ted]

I agree -- but I think many of the older airframes were built with larger tolerances, thus longer lived.

That may be the case in some cases, but remember that we've also had structural failures on older aircraft. You then have new aircraft like the Diamond which, as Kent has pointed out, meet certification requirements with one wing spar, but have two wing spars. On average I'd agree with you, though.

Don't know if folks will be flying Antique Cirri to fly-ins 50 years hence.

I don't think so, either, but I think that has more to do with materials than anything. Aluminum and steel hold up better than composites, typically.

50 years from now, I expect the Aztec and 310 to still be flying so long as I keep on maintaing them. Of course, that's assuming that any of us are still flying in 50 years. I'll probably be that guy telling young whipper snappers about how I flew one of them small airplanes, and they'll look at me even crazier than they do now.

 

[Everskyward]

I can appreciate the fact that certification is very expensive and time consuming. But what is the alternative? Shouldn't components be tested to some sort of standard especially if you are going to sell them to the public? I know that some people do a wonderful job on homebuilt experimental aircraft but not everyone does. As far as the comparison with cars goes, even cars need to meet certain safety standards. Then there's the avionics which nowadays is highly dependent on software. Shouldn't that meet certain standards too, especially if you are going to fly around in the clouds in the IFR system? Even certified airplanes have had software glitches that weren't caught during testing and needed to be corrected later.

 

[kyleb]

I can appreciate the fact that certification is very expensive and time consuming. But what is the alternative? Shouldn't components be tested to some sort of standard especially if you are going to sell them to the public? I know that some people do a wonderful job on homebuilt experimental aircraft but not everyone does. As far as the comparison with cars goes, even cars need to meet certain safety standards. Then there's the avionics which nowadays is highly dependent on software. Shouldn't that meet certain standards too, especially if you are going to fly around in the clouds in the IFR system? Even certified airplanes have had software glitches that weren't caught during testing and needed to be corrected later.

So if testing certified systems doesn't make them fool-proof, why would you mandate subjecting experimental avionics to the same cost increasing, yet fallable processes? Honestly, if you're flying IFR in your experimental, you need to do your homework and buy systems that have a proven track record. Don't be the first guy to buy the latest greatest system. There are some very unhappy people out there who did (see: Blue Mountain Avionics). And there are a bunch more very happy people who are successfully operating with non-certified avionics that have far more capability at a far lower cost than certified systems. Would we really prohibit that?

Something everyone should consider is that the vacuum systems in most certified airplanes are probably far more failure prone (due to vacuum pump failures) than experimental avionics. So why not force everyone throw out those failure prone gyros and install non-certified EFIS systems, since they are more reliable? Wouldn't that be a better solution?

 

[Everskyward]

So if testing certified systems doesn't make them fool-proof, why would you mandate subjecting experimental avionics to the same cost increasing, yet fallable processes?

Because I can imagine what things would be like if they weren't subject to any kind of standardized testing at all.

Honestly, if you're flying IFR in your experimental, you need to do your homework and buy systems that have a proven track record. Don't be the first guy to buy the latest greatest system.

So rather than paying someone to test a system who is aware of the possible problems you would rather have a customer test it?

And there are a bunch more very happy people who are successfully operating with non-certified avionics that have far more capability at a far lower cost than certified systems. Would we really prohibit that?

I didn't think we were prohibiting it. You can still do it in your experimental.

Something everyone should consider is that the vacuum systems in most certified airplanes are probably far more failure prone (due to vacuum pump failures) than experimental avionics. So why not force everyone throw out those failure prone gyros and install non-certified EFIS systems, since they are more reliable? Wouldn't that be a better solution?

Vacuum pumps are pretty simple though and while failure can be somewhat hard to diagnose at first, I would say that it would be easy to figure out compared to the number of possible bugs in avionics software programming.

 

[kyleb]

Because I can imagine what things would be like if they weren't subject to any kind of standardized testing at all.

So rather than paying someone to test a system who is aware of the possible problems you would rather have a customer test it?

I didn't think we were prohibiting it. You can still do it in your experimental.

Vacuum pumps are pretty simple though and while failure can be somewhat hard to diagnose at first, I would say that it would be easy to figure out compared to the number of possible bugs in avionics software programming.

Apologies for not being able to embed quotes...

Who says experimental systems are not tested? I don't think you'll find a single manufacturer currently in business which doesn't do extensive testing. Certification tests are something else entirely, and do not guarantee perfect operation.

Your argument on experimental avionics seems to have changed Obi-wan. Initially you opined that they shouldn't be allowed in IFR conditions without standardized tests.

And while vacuum pumps are simple, they fail every few hundred hours and leave you gyro-less. Non-certified glass, at least anecdotally, has a much better record of not leaving you high and dry. Forget trouble-shooting, the failure rate (or lack thereof) is the big issue.

 

[Everskyward]

Who says experimental systems are not tested? I don't think you'll find a single manufacturer currently in business which doesn't do extensive testing. Certification tests are something else entirely, and do not guarantee perfect operation.

Nothing will guarantee perfect operation but I think it's good to test to standards set by someone other than the manufacturer that everyone needs to meet, that is on certified airplanes, anyway.

And while vacuum pumps are simple, they fail every few hundred hours and leave you gyro-less. Non-certified glass, at least anecdotally, has a much better record of not leaving you high and dry. Forget trouble-shooting, the failure rate (or lack thereof) is the big issue.

You keep coming back to the vacuum pumps. Everyone knows they can fail. In fact I can't even come up with a number for the number of failures I've had, probably 2-5, but they weren't a big deal that I can remember. I think the problem with programming and software is they can fail in all kinds of insidious ways and lead you to believe something that is untrue. It's not about the panel suddenly going dark. Anyway, it's only my opinion, worth what you paid for it.

 

[denverpilot]

Does anyone think that if all the certification costs went away that we would have new simple airplanes in the $20-30,000 range? I think we would still have new airplanes in the $100,000+ range only they would have more bells and whistles. Isn't that what happens with cars? Prices don't come down although you might be able to get more and better technology for your dollar. It's the same with computers, cell phones, etc.

A Skylane adjusted for inflation from the starting price of Skylanes in the mid 1950s, would be just over $115K. Add in new technology (G1000-equipped, real autopilot, etc.) and maybe you hit $150K. But Cessna's selling them for over $300K.

 

[denverpilot]

Nate, your arguments about Experimental avionics and the "junk in your panel" are pretty inconsistant. So, you have junk, but argue against experimentals in the IFR system unless they buy the same junk?

Think about that...

I was arguing the exact opposite. The quality of the avionics available to experimental folks and certificated folks is exactly the same. The electronics inside the boxes are identical. I back it up with the hard numbers that even the insurance companies know this, or if the experimental folks were at significantly more risk, their rates would be exorbitantly higher.

The only folks that seem to "see" any difference in the quality of the avionics are sitting in FAA offices, officiating over the "certification" system.

I'd happily plunk a Dynon system at Experimental prices into my panel and fly behind it, but there's no consistent way to make a 182 "Experimental" in the FAA's system. And you probably "de-value" the aircraft unless you find someone like-minded (and co-owners who are also) who realize that the electronics inside a non-certificated box are 1000x better than flying behind refurbished gyros.

My complaint here is that the FAA is supposed to push for enhancing safety. Obviously solid state accelerometers and modern avionics are a significant enhancement (if proper training is utilized... there is that report out that glass-cockpits aren't stopping pilots from doing much of the "stuff" that kills us...), but the FAA pushes the price tag of those avionics up 3-5 times what they also allow in the same airspace, same system, same weather conditions... in an Experimental aircraft... by requiring a certification sticker.

I simply do not believe that certification costs as much as the manufacturers claim it does. I believe it's somewhat more expensive, but that the manufacturers are adding at least 20% pure profit to "FAA Certified" avionics.

Thus, indirectly... the FAA is actually LOWERING the quality standards for avionics in certificated aircraft by allowing the sham to go on. And the whole industry is "in on it"... since it even pays for all those glossy ads in the alphabet soup magazines these days.

My opinion, anyway.

 

[Ted]

The producers of experimental products have no incentive to sell you a product that's any worse than a certified equivalent. Selling you an unsafe product will get them sued and out of business quickly.

I see the value in certification for Part 135 and 121 operations, simply because you have unknowing passengers. This is already accounted for in the fact that Experimental aircraft are not allowed to be used for 135 or 121 ops. However, I'd like to take that one step further, and allow my certified aircraft used under Part 91 to be "converted" to experimental, so that I'm no longer tied to these expensive parts. I could also see the value in saying that a particular experimental aircraft could be used for 135/121 after a certain amount of "real world" experience has shown it to be a robust design.

The efforts required for certification do tend to produce a good product, but they are certainly not the only way to produce a good product. Additionally, no matter what you do and how much testing exists, you will end up having issues that will be discovered by the users.

 

[dmccormack]

I see the value in certification for Part 135 and 121 operations, simply because you have unknowing passengers. This is already accounted for in the fact that Experimental aircraft are not allowed to be used for 135 or 121 ops. However, I'd like to take that one step further, and allow my certified aircraft used under Part 91 to be "converted" to experimental, so that I'm no longer tied to these expensive parts. I could also see the value in saying that a particular experimental aircraft could be used for 135/121 after a certain amount of "real world" experience has shown it to be a robust design.

I agree 1000% -- on to NPRM!

 

[flyersfan31]

A Skylane adjusted for inflation from the starting price of Skylanes in the mid 1950s, would be just over $115K. Add in new technology (G1000-equipped, real autopilot, etc.) and maybe you hit $150K. But Cessna's selling them for over $300K.

Not an accurate comparison.

Those Skylanes were writing off overhead and fixed costs over a considerably larger production run. They built the same number in one year, roughly, as they do now in four.

 

[airguy]

"We" -- collectively -- agreed that owners, pilots, passengers, and people on the ground needed to be protected from unscrupulous operators foisting unairworthy products on unsuspecting buyers.

Oh - so this is line of argument is "OK" for you to use to discuss this particular issue, but it was verboten when I wanted to use it while discussing hairline cracks in connecting rods?

You betcha...

We need an icon of a referee throwing a penalty flag.

 

[Dan Thomas]

You keep coming back to the vacuum pumps. Everyone knows they can fail. In fact I can't even come up with a number for the number of failures I've had, probably 2-5, but they weren't a big deal that I can remember.

We don't have to put up with pump failures. We buy the pumps with vane wear inspection ports (Rapco and Tempest) and, starting at the 500-hour mark, pop the port open and check the vane wear every 100 hours. Takes three minutes, maybe. When the vanes reach the specified limit, the pump is changed. Vanes that get too short cock in their rotor slots and jam the rotor, breaking it. If the plastic drive coupling gets too old (in years, or in hot environments) they can fail, too, but ours never get that old. Before we started buying the ported pumps they would run until they broke, which isn't a much better idea than running magnetos or alternators until they quit.

And don't let mechanics wash down the engine with Varsol unless that pump is wrapped up in a rag to keep the solvent out. Solvents get into the
carbon vanes and rotor and gum them up and they fail real soon.

Dan

 

[Dart]

Too true. We want to interest more people? Make it a 4 seater capable of 2 adults, 2 kids, luggage, 650-750nm, tough gear (grass landings), a bit rough (simplicity), for $75k. Not the Mercedes of planes mind you, more like the Ford Escape (4cyl) of planes. VFR only, but upgradeable to IFR.

$75k new is far more palatable, much more than $300k. You can usually justify the 75 to the spouse, 300? Not so easy.

Making all planes into used C-182's is the answer???

Kidding aside, I'm with Ken. This is the video generation. Why should they study, sweat and get stinky for months on end just to qualify to fly a trainer when they can pop in Flight Simulator or F-16 and do Immelman's from day one.

I can't afford a plane. Not because I'm poor, but because over the years my recreational dollars (and there have been enough of those to buy a new 182) have gone to boats. Why? "cause I can share my yacht with a lot more folks and family, on more occasions. I can even anchor, drink my ass off, fall asleep, and wake up to a shower and hot coffee the next day. So it isn't the money; I got my certificate and almost two hundred hours in a variety of small planes while keeping boats.

Oh, and the government hasn't told me I can't sail my boat because I have type II diabetes.

But, I LOVE flying and it aches to not be able to as often as before.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What made me realize that certification was too difficult was when I started seeing safety *improvements* that do not come out due to the cost of certification.

I once talked to the owner of CubCrafters about the possibility of seeing a certified Carbon Cub. The answer was "No way. After what we had to go through to get the Top Cub certified, we will NEVER certify another airplane." That's a problem.

If you could make the certification process a bit less draconian, and somehow eliminate the big "L" word, I would bet you could drop the prices of new airplanes by 80% and still make a healthy profit.

 

[tdager]

"We" -- collectively -- agreed that owners, pilots, passengers, and people on the ground needed to be protected from unscrupulous operators foisting unairworthy products on unsuspecting buyers.

We pay for that in the certification process.

Price per part would be less if the market was larger. It's not, and the price is whatever the market will bear.

No "we" did not. Show me where any of us, EVER, voted for someone in the FAA? This fallacy that "we" are responsible because we voted in a politician is ludicrous, because we did NOT vote in the BUREAUCRAT! They are the ones we have to fight, and unless we can get 5.3 seconds of time with our Congress-critter the bcrat knows he can do what he likes.

 

[Abram]

This is a really interesting conversation with a number of good points. However, I believe that certification costs are a primary driver of the cost of aviation. That has the direct impact of causing people who may otherwise be interested in aviation to use their recreational dollars in other places.

It is absolutely the case when it comes to producing new airplanes. The cost of airplanes is so high because the total cost of production, a large part of which is driven by the certification costs, has to be spread over a small number of units sold.

However, it is also the case with upgrading aircraft. As an example, I would like to upgrade my panel to a G1000, but I can't, because the FAA won't allow it since it has not been certificated. That is notwithstanding the fact that I can buy a new version of my airplane with a G1000. Garmin says it will cost several million dollars to certify old airplanes for the conversion, hence, they will never make money on the project and will not undertake it.

It is the classic "chicken and egg" discussion: Is flying so expensive because there are so few pilots or are there so few pilots because flying is so expensive?

 

[steingar]

While you are spot on, do add the price of litigation and protection from same. And welcome to POA.

 

[weilke]

The efforts required for certification do tend to produce a good product, but they are certainly not the only way to produce a good product. Additionally, no matter what you do and how much testing exists, you will end up having issues that will be discovered by the users.

The ASTM process for the certification of LSAs shows the shortcomings of leaving the standards to industry to figure out. We already had one where the wings fall off and a couple with really squirrely handling characteristics.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Squirrely handling can be a feature not a bug. Assuming of course experience in something other than spam cans.

 

[Everskyward]

Squirrely handling can be a feature not a bug. Assuming of course experience in something other than spam cans.

But I thought LSAs were supposed to be easy enough to fly for people with even less training than they would receive to fly spam cans.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The ASTM process for the certification of LSAs shows the shortcomings of leaving the standards to industry to figure out. We already had one where the wings fall off and a couple with really squirrely handling characteristics.

I don't think the de Haviland Comet is an LSA. :wink2: (Side note: I think it is more accurate to say the fuselage "falls off," not the wings on any airplane in flight.)

The FAA has a vast list of ADs that proves that certification doesn't insure perfect design the first time, so taking a handful of failures of one design as indicating the ASTM process has any special shortcomings is, in my humble opinion, grossly erroneous special pleading.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

However, it is also the case with upgrading aircraft. As an example, I would like to upgrade my panel to a G1000, but I can't, because the FAA won't allow it since it has not been certificated. That is notwithstanding the fact that I can buy a new version of my airplane with a G1000. Garmin says it will cost several million dollars to certify old airplanes for the conversion, hence, they will never make money on the project and will not undertake it.

Huh. You should have told them you had a King Air, or asked why they would say such a thing when they do have a retrofit for the King Air and the C525.

https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=153&pID=9717
https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=153&pID=67985