Guest Editorial: The Death of General Aviation?

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Is It Time To Overhaul (Or Even Eliminate) FAA Certification of GA?

By John Ylinen, Private Pilot

If you are reading this column in Aero-News; then you are probably an aviation enthusiast -- and most likely a pilot. If you became a pilot since the 1970s; you have been witnessing the slow death of General Aviation. For the purposes of this editorial; I will confine my discussion to Private aviation, small plane and privately owned. Not corporate jets or other such commercial endeavors. Commonly called/flown under Part 91.


I recently read an editorial in Flying Magazine by Editor in Chief Robert Goyer titled "Why Certification Matters." In it he expounds that we are all better off because the FAA certifies our planes under Part 23. He said that we needed the government to closely oversee the design, building, and maintenance of our Part 23 aircraft throughout their life. If they didn't; his point was that we would be letting our aircraft become unsafe and not sure (of) what we were buying or flying. This editorial got me thinking, along with my deep concern that we might not be able to fly for much longer, if the current trend in GA continues. After much thought; I strongly disagree with Mr. Goyer.

(link to rest of article)
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=e1dc64fc-7ef7-4b5a-a23d-0a0f30d87061&Dynamic=1
 
If we could go a couple years with no bad crashes, maybe we could convince the FAA to relax some of the regs. But reality check, I doubt we could go a couple weeks without crashes. And so long as pilots are crashing, they can crash on top of somebody. The regs stay.
 
I think the author is making an argument to change #2 to positively affect #1 where it applies to #3, Dan
 
Jaybird180 said:
I think the author is making an argument to change #2 to positively affect #1 where it applies to #3, Dan
Click to expand...


Yeah, ain't happen'

:no:

The LSA rule will open the floodgates!

:crickets:

VLJ will open the skies to air taxis!

:crickets:

Sport Pilot will increase the pilot population back to GI Bill levels!

:crickets:
 
So what are your bright ideas? As a non-owner, I welcome the idea that I could buy an airplane for what I paid for my car. I also welcome the possible aftermarket that comes with it. I think most people would be smart enough to choose to maintain their airplanes in good condition. How many would dispense with maintenance if it weren't required? Some, yes but I think he may at least have an idea here.

Kinda like when the experiment was done with speed limits. We learned that speed limits do not make roads safer, yet politics still means we have them all over the US.

Let's at least study the effects, then judge.
 
Jaybird180 said:
I think the author is making an argument to change #2 to positively affect #1 where it applies to #3, Dan
Click to expand...
Didn't the Cirrus, Diamond and Columbia all certify new aircraft in the time frame that he says?

"There has not been a NEW piston airframe certified by the FAA since the Cirrus SR20 and Diamond DA-42 in 1999."

Oh wait he exempted those examples form his argument because they were over a decade old, "That is over a decade ago."

Then the argument just turns to cost of new aircraft immediately after blowing apart his whole point on new aircraft certs, "The cost of new aircraft has significantly exceeded inflation since 1970 and grown exponentially in the last 30 years." So is the problem aircraft certification, new aircraft cost or what? If the aircraft that had been certified decades before now are not incurring new engineering costs then there should be a reduction of acquisition cost for similar markets sizes. But what we see is a shrinking market so the costs remain high. Why is the market shrinking? Lots of factors but I doubt certification is one of them as evidenced by the Diamond, Cirrus, Columbia certs that have all not resulted in market increases. All that happened was that they scavenged other brands in the already saturated market.
 
dmccormack said:
Hang on...

Three different issues here:
  1. Decline of GA activity
  2. Certification
  3. Part 91 flight rules
Which one are we talking about?
Click to expand...
I think that the article could best be described as hitting a lot of topics and seeing what will stick. So to answer your question all and none of those items. All, as in he mentions them, but none as he shows no causality.
 
ScottM said:
I think that the article could best be described as hitting a lot of topics and seeing what will stick. So to answer your question all and none of those items. All, as in he mentions them, but none as he shows no causality.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY!!!

Which means a treatise and position for each.

For example -- how to address the dwindling pilot population?

AOPA and EAA each have well funded, well thought out programs. Yet the numbers are not promising.

Therefore I suggest we .... [insert genius prescription here]
 
Jaybird180 said:
So what are your bright ideas? As a non-owner, I welcome the idea that I could buy an airplane for what I paid for my car. I also welcome the possible aftermarket that comes with it. I think most people would be smart enough to choose to maintain their airplanes in good condition. How many would dispense with maintenance if it weren't required? Some, yes but I think he may at least have an idea here.

Kinda like when the experiment was done with speed limits. We learned that speed limits do not make roads safer, yet politics still means we have them all over the US.

Let's at least study the effects, then judge.
Click to expand...


We have studied the effects -- it was called 1920-1935.

While I applaud the effort to expose problems and then propose solutions, the letter linked was simply too many topics with too many holes. I'm sure I'm not the only one who said, "Wait..well what about...?' while reading it.

So if I -- a GA partisan -- am confused, what do we expect non-GA fans to conclude?
 
ScottM said:
I think that the article could best be described as hitting a lot of topics and seeing what will stick. So to answer your question all and none of those items. All, as in he mentions them, but none as he shows no causality.
Click to expand...

The article seemed pretty focused to me, on the cost of buying, owning, and maintaining an aircraft, and the cost bloat the FAA puts on every aspect of that operation.

Why is my LED landing light $280, when the same LED light for a tractor costs $30?
Why is my door handle (from a 1966 Chrysler) a "certified part" and a PMA replacement costs $200, when a 1966 Chrysler door handle costs $15?
Why is a alternator belt (a Gates Green Stripe) $80 from Piper (with their part number written in Sharpie marker) when the same Gates Green Stripe belt from Napa costs $10?

Why is this even a debate?
 
PilotAlan said:
The article seemed pretty focused to me, on the cost of buying, owning, and maintaining an aircraft, and the cost bloat the FAA puts on every aspect of that operation.

Why is my LED landing light $280, when the same LED light for a tractor costs $30?
Why is my door handle (from a 1966 Chrysler) a "certified part" and a PMA replacement costs $200, when a 1966 Chrysler door handle costs $15?
Why is a alternator belt (a Gates Green Stripe) $80 from Piper (with their part number written in Sharpie marker) when the same Gates Green Stripe belt from Napa costs $10?

Why is this even a debate?
Click to expand...


"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.
 
While I agree that certification costs are nuts, I doubt reducing them to zero would solve anything. GA got a big boost after WWII, but that has been waning ever since. The litigation frenzy in the 80s didn't help, but it accelerated an already extant process.

I haven't seen the LSA movement do anything but allow a few of our more elderly and infirm pilots to keep flying just that much longer. The aircraft are half the price, and still haven't opened up the market. Nor are they likely to do so. You can go out and buy the world's nicest motorcycle for a third the cost. Or a nice boat for half. And you don't need to sink in months of time and thousands of dollars just to learn to operate your toy.

Add to that the fact that no one has ever figured out a way to assemble an aircraft except by hand. Thus the price of a new one is controlled by labor costs. which do nothing but increase. And there isn't sufficient demand to employ any of the economy of scale technologies that have been so effective in the automotive sector.

Any day now the EPA will outlaw avgas, and that will be it, at least for yours truly.
 
Let's have some tort reform while we're at the whole relaxing of certification cost thing. Also, we should consider allowing NTSB factual report experts into the courtrooms as a way of checking the bloodthirsty trial lawyers suing the manufacturers of a 30 year old airframe and engine because some dude flew the plane into the ground in IMC.
The fear of lawsuits is a big reason your alternator belt costs $80, and also a major reason that a 1930s-style four cylinder motor costs $40,000.
 
steingar said:
Add to that the fact that no one has ever figured out a way to assemble an aircraft except by hand. Thus the price of a new one is controlled by labor costs. which do nothing but increase.
Click to expand...
I wish what you are saying were true. But in reality the prices of new GA aircraft are controlled by the liability insurance, not labor costs.
 
zaitcev said:
I wish what you are saying were true. But in reality the prices of new GA aircraft are controlled by the liability insurance, not labor costs.
Click to expand...


Everything is built into the price of an airplane.
 
dmccormack said:
"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
Click to expand...

I would agree with that, IF and only IF, the federal certification process immunized the manufacturer for design issues.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds, where the manufacturer must bear the staggering cost of certification, and so it how the FAA wants it, and THEN is facing with the shark pool of trial lawyers coming after them.

Either remove certification and let the lawyers sort it out, or remove the lawyers and let the FAA sort it out. But both at the same time is stupid.
 
One of the topics not covered is that a very large chunk of any modern certificated aircraft cost is in avionics. The price differential between certified and non-certified avionics tells the tale.

Alan's comments about $80 rubber belts aside, it's ludicrous that the FAA will allow the guy with "EXPERIMENTAL" printed on the door jam to fly in the same IFR system as a Certificated aircraft, with avionics that can't be legally used IFR in the Certificated aircraft.

Not saying I want them to stop allowing the other guy... just saying that the certification system is horrendously broken for avionics. My iPad offers more situational awareness and true safety than the junk the FAA mandates in my panel.

And you can tell in this particular case that the insurance companies aren't calling the shots, and it's not product liability driving those prices, because those folks flying IMC with Experimentals aren't paying significantly higher insurance prices to carry themselves aloft, or passengers. Not significantly meaning, not enough money per year to justify the difference in price between certified and non-certified avionics with the same feature-set.
 
Jaybird180 said:
So what are your bright ideas? As a non-owner, I welcome the idea that I could buy an airplane for what I paid for my car.
Click to expand...

You can, just not a new one.

Jaybird180 said:
I also welcome the possible aftermarket that comes with it. I think most people would be smart enough to choose to maintain their airplanes in good condition. How many would dispense with maintenance if it weren't required?
Click to expand...

Not from what I've seen. There is a segment of GA airplane owners that really can't afford to be owners. These owners cut every corner possible. Another segment will forgo airworthiness issues instead buying the latest electronic goodies for their panel.

If maintenance were not required you would have owners simply not doing it and eventually the accidents that go along.

Jaybird180 said:
Kinda like when the experiment was done with speed limits. We learned that speed limits do not make roads safer, yet politics still means we have them all over the US.

Let's at least study the effects, then judge.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of examples already out there of what happens when people try to circumvent the rules.
 
PilotAlan said:
I would agree with that, IF and only IF, the federal certification process immunized the manufacturer for design issues.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds, where the manufacturer must bear the staggering cost of certification, and so it how the FAA wants it, and THEN is facing with the shark pool of trial lawyers coming after them.

Either remove certification and let the lawyers sort it out, or remove the lawyers and let the FAA sort it out. But both at the same time is stupid.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree.
 
dmccormack said:
"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.
Click to expand...

yep. :thumbsup:
 
Telemakhos said:
Let's have some tort reform while we're at the whole relaxing of certification cost thing. Also, we should consider allowing NTSB factual report experts into the courtrooms as a way of checking the bloodthirsty trial lawyers suing the manufacturers of a 30 year old airframe and engine because some dude flew the plane into the ground in IMC.
The fear of lawsuits is a big reason your alternator belt costs $80, and also a major reason that a 1930s-style four cylinder motor costs $40,000.
Click to expand...
We already did have a tort reform for GA.

The GA Revitalization Act of 1994 limits civil action against aircraft manufacturers to of older aircraft that had been changing private owner hands http://www.avweb.com/news/news/184254-1.html

GARA was drafted and passed with the exact intention to stop manufactures of 30 and 40 year old airplanes from being sued. It has worked very well to. Cessna and Piper saw immediate benefit and updated a lot of airplanes instead of defending law suits on their older aircraft.

Here is a 9 year old article on how well it has worked: http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181905-1.html
 
ScottM said:
GARA was drafted and passed with the exact intention to stop manufactures of 30 and 40 year old airplanes from being sued. It has worked very well to. Cessna and Piper saw immediate benefit and updated a lot of airplanes instead of defending law suits on their older aircraft.
Click to expand...

GARA has some benefit, but it also has some perverse disincentives as well.
As soon as a part or piece touches a plane, the liability clock starts over for that part or piece. So manufacturers are actually encouraged NOT to make products, not to make parts, and not to improve products.

So, say Piper designs a better lander gear button for the PA-28. It's an easy swap, improves safety, and makes unicorns dance on rainbows.
They have no liability for all the current buttons out there (except those made in the last 16 years). But if everyone buys a new button, then now they are subject to liability for every landing accident that a crafty lawyer can somehow or another tie to the use of the flap button.

See the problem and disincentive there?
 
ScottM said:
We already did have a tort reform for GA.

The GA Revitalization Act of 1994 limits civil action against aircraft manufacturers to of older aircraft that had been changing private owner hands http://www.avweb.com/news/news/184254-1.html

GARA was drafted and passed with the exact intention to stop manufactures of 30 and 40 year old airplanes from being sued. It has worked very well to. Cessna and Piper saw immediate benefit and updated a lot of airplanes instead of defending law suits on their older aircraft.

Here is a 9 year old article on how well it has worked: http://www.avweb.com/news/avlaw/181905-1.html
Click to expand...

Hunh?

GARA has protected a few incumbents, but it appears to have shifted liability (thus the significant increase in owner premiums) and not "revitalized" much.

A longer, more legal paper here: A Good Idea Stretched Too Far: Amending
the General Aviation Revitalization Act to Mitigate Unintended Inequities
 
The sky is not falling, guys. Look at the bright side. We can all still soar around in the air relatively unfettered. What an amazing thing! Let's be thankful for what we have.
 
somorris said:
The sky is not falling, guys. Look at the bright side. We can all still soar around in the air relatively unfettered. What an amazing thing! Let's be thankful for what we have.
Click to expand...

You don't fly in DC area, do you?

:rolleyes2:

(But I take your point -- it's not all bad, but it's not looking bright ahead, either)
 
You don't fly in DC area, do you?
Click to expand...

No. Thank goodness. I am in Arkansas and wouldn't move for anything. I feel for you.
 
And anywhere else the President goes. :rolleyes2:
 
dmccormack said:
You don't fly in DC area, do you?

:rolleyes2:

(But I take your point -- it's not all bad, but it's not looking bright ahead, either)
Click to expand...

If you consider the state of GA in the rest of the world, since the beginning, and including the post-war boom, we've been damn lucky here in the USA.

Not that I'm not complaining, mind you... the future of US GA could very well go that way, easily... an unpleasant thought.

The lawsuit-induced costs of everything flying-related, and BS like "permanent TFRs" and Piper Cub-based terror-nuke fantasies have been strangling this good thing we've had, since long before I started flying in the 90s. Meanwhile, yearly accident stats rise and fall, yet the list always contains too many VFR-into IMC, stall/spin in pattern, and other basic errors. "We have met the enemy", etc.... it's a two-way street.

The least any one of us can do to fight that is to set a good example, and be a tireless booster for flying whenever we get a chance to talk about it with the uninitiated.
 
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.
 
I started flying three years ago, I have about 170 hours now. Becoming a pilot AND owning an airplane takes a high level of personal and financial determination. For me, flying was something I wanted to do my entire life but could not really afford to do earlier and there was simply no substitute for. There are still plenty of people out there with the disposable income to fly recreationally. For most, it's just easier to visit the car dealer and sign the papers on a shiny new BMW M3.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
Thanks.

Thanks a lot...
Click to expand...

No offense, but he's right. SP has not exactly released a flood of brand new pilots onto the market, but it has allowed a lot of folks to stop visiting the doc for a medical certificate yet remain flying.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. I ain't gettin' any younger.

Still -- airplane prices follow basic economics. Low Demand = Fewer Units Produced = Higher Per Unit Cost = More Expensive = Lower Demand.

Given that flight instruction with a punkass 19yr old timebuilder costs $50/hr in many places, and an average PPL takes about 70hrs, well, that's a tough nut for many folks to get over. Then there's the $100/hr joy of renting or ownership equivalent. You can get a C140 for $20g and fly it for 4gph, but that doesn't suit a lot of folks.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Still -- airplane prices follow basic economics. Low Demand = Fewer Units Produced = Higher Per Unit Cost = More Expensive = Lower Demand.

Given that flight instruction with a punkass 19yr old timebuilder costs $50/hr in many places, and an average PPL takes about 70hrs, well, that's a tough nut for many folks to get over. Then there's the $100/hr joy of renting or ownership equivalent. You can get a C140 for $20g and fly it for 4gph, but that doesn't suit a lot of folks.
Click to expand...

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.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Then there's the $100/hr joy of renting or ownership equivalent. You can get a C140 for $20g and fly it for 4gph, but that doesn't suit a lot of folks.
Click to expand...

... 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.
 
denverpilot said:
One of the topics not covered is that a very large chunk of any modern certificated aircraft cost is in avionics. The price differential between certified and non-certified avionics tells the tale.

Alan's comments about $80 rubber belts aside, it's ludicrous that the FAA will allow the guy with "EXPERIMENTAL" printed on the door jam to fly in the same IFR system as a Certificated aircraft, with avionics that can't be legally used IFR in the Certificated aircraft.

Not saying I want them to stop allowing the other guy... just saying that the certification system is horrendously broken for avionics. My iPad offers more situational awareness and true safety than the junk the FAA mandates in my panel.

And you can tell in this particular case that the insurance companies aren't calling the shots, and it's not product liability driving those prices, because those folks flying IMC with Experimentals aren't paying significantly higher insurance prices to carry themselves aloft, or passengers. Not significantly meaning, not enough money per year to justify the difference in price between certified and non-certified avionics with the same feature-set.
Click to expand...

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...
 
kyleb said:
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...
Click to expand...

:idea:This may be his way of pointing out a level of absurdity....

But I certainly see your point.
 
Lower the price of flying and you still have pilots being grumpy pilots and crap business people. As for serving customers could flight schools do worse? Pilots are terribly unfriendly to nonpilots. Visit an airport where they won't recognize you, leave the AOPA hat/watch/A2 jacket at home inquire about learning to fly and see how friendly everyone is...
Without better service the pilot population will not grow.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Lower the price of flying and you still have pilots being grumpy pilots and crap business people. As for serving customers could flight schools do worse? Pilots are terribly unfriendly to nonpilots. Visit an airport where they won't recognize you, leave the AOPA hat/watch/A2 jacket at home inquire about learning to fly and see how friendly everyone is...
Without better service the pilot population will not grow.
Click to expand...

GA is full of hyperinflated egos. We tend to think of ourselves much more highly than is justified, and transmit that distasteful air of superiority whenever we're around anyone who knows we fly.

To be fair, it's not just aviation. I used to play with speedboats and that field has no lack of arrogant folks, either. Same goes for big trucks and off-road toys. The damage that expensive possessions can do to a man's attitude is simply amazing.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top