Interesting Avweb comment

[John Baker]

Myself, I am rapidly becoming convinced that the government is deliberately eliminating the bulk of the GA fleet through an overabundance of regulations and artificially manufactured expenses, if not GA altogether.

I'm thinking it is to make way for the coming huge network of drones that will be operating from 400' or less on up through most of the flight levels, except those that are needed for cattle cars. It's a whole lot more than us oldsters hanging up our headsets for good.

-John

 

[Anthony]

Between $7/gal avgas, and these types of "upgrades" I believe you and some of the others are right. I am getting close to putting the Tiger up for sale. $70/hour just for gas is kind of unjustifiable for a hobby.

 

[n12365]

I do see where some older airplanes that are running either /U, /A, or outdated /G may be hurt in the sense of needing to make a more substantial avionics upgrade. I also question how many of these owners actively fly IFR. More may be hurt by VFR in what's currently the Mode C veil, but I'm not convinced that will be a huge number.

I own a /U airplane and fly IFR on almost all cross country flights. Each year it gets more difficult to stay in the system. On almost every flight, I get a clearance for direct to a fix, but have to decline because I don't have a certificated GPS. Most controllers understand right away, others are confused why I can't accept the clearance.

 

[n12365]

By the time you add the -330 transponder at $3500, you're at $8k for Garmin's current solution. And then you get jacked up for another $XXXX to have the system installed, for a total installed price approaching $10k.

If you are installing a GDL-88, you won't need a new transponder. At least not for domestic flights below FL180.

 

[Ted]

Between $7/gal avgas, and these types of "upgrades" I believe you and some of the others are right. I am getting close to putting the Tiger up for sale. $70/hour just for gas is kind of unjustifiable for a hobby.

This is the big distinction - hobby. The system exists not for hobbies, but for those who are trying to get something done. Airlines are the obvious big ones, and so the system is designed more around that. Hobbyists are an afterthought, which is logical, albeit annoying to those hobbyists who can't afford to keep up with the requirements... The last big update of which was... Around the time I was born.

 

[denverpilot]

This is the big distinction - hobby. The system exists not for hobbies, but for those who are trying to get something done. Airlines are the obvious big ones, and so the system is designed more around that. Hobbyists are an afterthought, which is logical, albeit annoying to those hobbyists who can't afford to keep up with the requirements... The last big update of which was... Around the time I was born.

The big difference this time seems to be the lack of cut-outs for the hobbyists.

Even Mode C wasn't required away from large terminal airspace in the last round of big avionics requirements... and you can still call and get a Mode C waiver to get in and out of the veil with a simple phone call to the controlling agency if necessary.

No such relaxation on the ADS-B Out mandates, because (supposedly) the ground-based infrastructure out in the styx but still in controlled airspace, will disappear.

I have my suspicions that a lot less of the Mode C gear will disappear than FAA says, though. Government protects its projects, and never seems to ever get truly smaller or more efficient at much of anything.

They'll come up with mountains of paperwork to keep the secondary radar systems going, since they're just riding on top of the primary radar anyway, and those will be continued in the Defense budget for whatever "adequate" coverage is necessary for that primary purpose.

It's really a move to positively ID everything that flies, more than it is a move to upgrade technology to replace the radars. They all listened to the ID tapes from 9/11 and found all the holes in that system. The ID techs supposedly able to pick out the primary targets, were the most lost all day of any of the participants in the day's events. The critical path requirement for "ADS-B Out" isn't the ADS-B part, it's the Mode-S with a data block for every single transponder. Add on the requirement to push down your own location as backup.

It ain't about upgrading technology for higher density traffic, or any of the public stories -- it's about putting a data tag up at NORTHCOM on everything moving in the sky.

 

[Ted]

Nate, I'd agree that they'll figure out ways to keep at least part of the old systems operational. If nothing else, we don't yet have Cat II WAAS approaches. That's important for the airports with Cat II ILSs. I also agree that ADS-B is relatively fragile due to its GPS dependency. Although this doesn't bother me personally, I agree it is bothersome.

But there is a lot of effort to not only pack more airliners in, but to improve flight profiles for reduced fuel consumption. I can see where the new equipment could help in that regard.

 

[Dr. O]

2020 is two presidential elections and at least one new war away.

Without the weekend warriors going from A to B for that UBER hamburger, the FAA will find it has shot itself in the foot as aircraft movements at many D and C airports plummet to just the biz jets and airliners. This will be vastly below the regulatory requirements for minimum number of aircraft movements to keep the airport controlled (staffed tower, etc.)
All things go through cycles. Before 2020 we will see the law of unintended consequences begin to intrude upon the consciousness of FAA executive staff and they will begin to worry about THEIR job. At which point you will see changed regs coming out regarding bug smashers.

In the end we will have some additional requirements o us, but not as onerous as it looks right now.

 

[Steve Foley]

The ADS-B crap is one of the main reasons I sold my airplane.

When did that happen?

 

[Bob Noel]

When did that happen?

31 August.

 

[Steve Foley]

31 August.

How much of a beating did you take? I bought for $17K in 2000, replaced FWF for $19K, also in 2000, and sold for $20K in 2009 with 250 SMOH.

 

[Bob Noel]

How much of a beating did you take? I bought for $17K in 2000, replaced FWF for $19K, also in 2000, and sold for $20K in 2009 with 250 SMOH.

The market drop probably cut the value of the 140 by more than half. I sold it for $18,000 as a special deal to the IA who worked on the airplane since 2002. Anyone else would have had to pay me more. He got a good deal in part because he knows the airplane. And we both got a good deal because it was a one of those old-time style deals where a handshake is good enough.

I had the airplane since 1994, so I ended up spending a lot of money on various things over the years - I really don't want to add it all up, if you know what I mean. But I had a lot of fun since most of the work was owner-assisted (Only two annual inspections were not owner-assisted, got burned really really bad by an IA known locally as Dr Death - never again).

 

[rpadula]

This is the big distinction - hobby. The system exists not for hobbies, but for those who are trying to get something done. Airlines are the obvious big ones, and so the system is designed more around that. Hobbyists are an afterthought, which is logical, albeit annoying to those hobbyists who can't afford to keep up with the requirements... The last big update of which was... Around the time I was born.

Some peoples' hobby is to take an old car out for a nice Sunday drive (a Red Barchetta, if you will), but they don't have to put up with as much regulatory bullstuff as we do.

 

[Anthony]

This is the big distinction - hobby. The system exists not for hobbies, but for those who are trying to get something done. Airlines are the obvious big ones, and so the system is designed more around that. Hobbyists are an afterthought, which is logical, albeit annoying to those hobbyists who can't afford to keep up with the requirements... The last big update of which was... Around the time I was born.

Well, I have used GA for business travel, and vacation travel to "get somewhere" over the years. As cost escalate, it has become less and less justifyable, so for now it has become more of a hobby for me. Totally due to cost/benefit.

I don't understand why GA could be a "hobby" for decades, but now it is just an annoyance to those that use the system for profit. So its OK to squeeze out the people that use GA for casual travel, and enjoyment in the name of "security"?

 

[Steve Foley]

So its OK to squeeze out the people that use GA for casual travel, and enjoyment in the name of "security"?

If it's OK to subject children and little old ladies to strip searches, it's certainly OK to squeeze out the "Rich Flyboys"

 

[denverpilot]

Nate, I'd agree that they'll figure out ways to keep at least part of the old systems operational. If nothing else, we don't yet have Cat II WAAS approaches. That's important for the airports with Cat II ILSs. I also agree that ADS-B is relatively fragile due to its GPS dependency. Although this doesn't bother me personally, I agree it is bothersome.

But there is a lot of effort to not only pack more airliners in, but to improve flight profiles for reduced fuel consumption. I can see where the new equipment could help in that regard.

What we see as diminishing returns (millions/billions spent for single digit percentage changes in fuel burn or less) is a big deal to the broke-ass airlines.

 

[Bob Noel]

What we see as diminishing returns (millions/billions spent for single digit percentage changes in fuel burn or less) is a big deal to the broke-ass airlines.

Understood.

Do people understand we have an insufficient number of suitable runways? It's not the airspace that is congested.

 

[Ted]

What we see as diminishing returns (millions/billions spent for single digit percentage changes in fuel burn or less) is a big deal to the broke-ass airlines.

It's not really that insignificant. Spend a couple hours flying turbines and you'll understand. Wayne can describe it better than I can, but the fuel burn changes incredibly with altitude.

 

[steingar]

Do people understand we have an insufficient number of suitable runways? It's not the airspace that is congested.

No, people do not understand this at all. People don't understand that the TSA is just security theater and doesn't catch terrorists, it is in fact quite popular. people understand very, very little about aviation, and wouldn't miss it gone.

 

[Ted]

Understood.

Do people understand we have an insufficient number of suitable runways? It's not the airspace that is congested.

Being able to make better arrivals does not require more runways. One can argue the necessity of ADS-B for that.

Reducing the maintenance costs on radar facilities and navaids that the FAA has to pay does impact their budget, which is being tightened.

 

[N801BH]

Being able to make better arrivals does not require more runways. One can argue the necessity of ADS-B for that.

Reducing the maintenance costs on radar facilities and navaids that the FAA has to pay does impact their budget, which is being tightened.

The VAST part of the FAA's budget is payroll, benefits and a staggering retirement obligation for all of the employees.. Maintaining radar sites is probably .8% of the entire annual costs.

 

[denverpilot]

It's not really that insignificant. Spend a couple hours flying turbines and you'll understand. Wayne can describe it better than I can, but the fuel burn changes incredibly with altitude.

That's okay, I get it. The issue here is that it doesn't matter how many fancy descent profiles you build, you can't cram any more airplanes into O'Hare when the weather goes to crap.

Or LAX, or JFK, or... heck, even DEN... our "all-weather" boondoggle... upon which the most often problem isn't in whether or not there's enough airspace for all those fancy simultaneous ILS approaches it has, but whether or not the snowplow crews can keep up with keeping three runways open at the same time.

Bunch of fancy descent profiles that descend all the way to the runway without touching power and is properly tracked via ADS-B doesn't keep the runway plowed. The promise of better on-time performance and what-not, hits different limits most of the time, that ADS-B won't solve. Doesn't even address, in fact. But costs a frakkin' boatload to the taxpayer. Let alone what it'll cost to us spam-can drivers.

 

[Ted]

The VAST part of the FAA's budget is payroll, benefits and a staggering retirement obligation for all of the employees.. Maintaining radar sites is probably .8% of the entire annual costs.

Just like the rest of the government. Too much welfare.

 

[Bob Noel]

Being able to make better arrivals does not require more runways. .

The usefullness of "better arrivals" is limited by the number of aircraft that can be landing and taking off.

Without changing that equation, packing more aircraft closer together in the air will mean exactly Richard.

One can argue the necessity of ADS-B for that.

knock yourself out.

 

[N801BH]

Just like the rest of the government. Too much welfare.

Agreed..

 

[denverpilot]

The VAST part of the FAA's budget is payroll, benefits and a staggering retirement obligation for all of the employees.. Maintaining radar sites is probably .8% of the entire annual costs.

They just haven't hit the point the rest of us hit long ago... no one has guaranteed-benefit plans for retirement anymore. Most of the weeping and gnashing of teeth from government employees these days is in seeing that go away for them, as it mostly already has for everyone else, at least a decade ago, if not two.

Still tons of pension plans for government employees that are flat-out lying about their expected rate of return, pretending they can make it up when everything comes roaring back. Ain't happening.

The autopilot is set up for CFIT, and the pilots and passengers are aware and just sitting around talking about it.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Already exists in the maritime world. Everything above a set tonnage must have AIS (basically xpdr for ships). I am sure the trucking industry is close, if not there already.

The big companies track their trucks via units that contain GPS and a cell connection (where available) or satellite where the cell network isn't working.

Some of those systems now have electronic driver logs (hours of service) as well.

It's not a requirement yet, but I expect that 10 years or so from now, after a significant percentage of trucking companies are using electronic logs, they'll become mandated. I also expect that to squeeze quite a few (tens of thousands) owner/operators and small companies out of business... But nobody will care because 90% of the trucking capacity will still be there, and the big companies will thrive with the reduced competition.

 

[N801BH]

..... but whether or not the snowplow crews can keep up with keeping three runways open at the same time.

Bunch of fancy descent profiles that descend all the way to the runway without touching power and is properly tracked via ADS-B doesn't keep the runway plowed. The promise of better on-time performance and what-not, hits different limits most of the time, that ADS-B won't solve. Doesn't even address, in fact. But costs a frakkin' boatload to the taxpayer. Let alone what it'll cost to us spam-can drivers.

..

Nate.. if they had invested the 400 million or so they SUNK into the state of the art baggage handling system that utterly failed, into a ground source, heat supplied by drilling a few wells down to 20,000 and circulating that hot water through tubes they could have buried in the concrete, most of the snow would dissappear.. IMHO.

 

[Old Geek]

In discussing AOPA Summit on Avweb, Thomas Yarsley makes a really interesting comment. At a post air-show hanger party, he says they had their own mini-Summit. His comment:

"One consensus: 2020 is a looming A-bomb for GA. Most who spoke agreed that fully 50% of the existing GA fleet - and some associated percentage of GA pilots - will become "retired" in 2020 when the ADSB rules kick in, unless....

Unless one or more of the avionics manufacturers comes up with an affordable (read: <$6k, installed) one-box solution for meeting the requirements. And unless the FAA allows the industry to do it (STC, 337s, etc.). The "one-box" would have to include a glass 6-pack replacement (with all supporting sensors), a WAAS GPS, ADS-B in and out, blind encoder, and ELT."

Seems pretty spot on to me. In the next 6-7 years, we're looking at a great majority of the fleet facing a significant upgrade to stay functional for anything other than Sunday morning flying.

The traditional Garmin approach of bringing a $15k solution (plus installation) to the party will effectively kill a significant portion of the fleet. Heck, we joke that the G430 is ubiquitous, but looking at Barnstormers, a LOT of the fleet doesn't currently have a GPS that can be upgraded to WAAS ... and the 430 has already been abandoned.

I'm wondering if this represents a unique opportunity for someone like Dynon. They've built their entire business model around value for the dollar. This has forced them to focus on the experimental market because "value" and "certified" simply haven't fit in the same sentence. That said, pre-2020 all Dynon type upgrades were effectively optional. Come 2020, not so much the truth.

In addition to the avionics, Dynon has at least a start on the radio work.

Another potential player might be Aspen. They've brought out some really impressive products when you consider the certification hurdle they faced as well as the cost of competing commercial product.

What seems to always be the killer is the ABSURD certification expenses. I wonder if a real role for AOPA over the next 5 years could be on developing a streamlines certification solution that would address cost of complying with the ADSB mandate. Additionally, I believe there is a real need to address STC for installation (maybe, maybe not ... I'm no expert).

Anyway, with the headwinds that GA is facing, this really is another BIG problem. Our traditional industry response I don't think will address this ... we need to find another way to keep 40-50 year old planes (worth $25k-$35k) flying when the mandate hits. Without some type of innovative approach, I agree with Thomas that we'll see a significant portion of the fleet effectively grounded.

Thoughts?

No thoughts, but I did forward your entire post to the president of Dynon, a long-time friend of mine and one of a couple of people that inspired me to fly. If he has any public thoughts on the matter, I'll let you know.

 

[alaskaflyer]

The VAST part of the FAA's budget is payroll, benefits and a staggering retirement obligation for all of the employees.. Maintaining radar sites is probably .8% of the entire annual costs.

Don't you think that maintaining navigation aids and radar sites is a manpower (and thus payroll) intensive endeavor compared to costs for parts and whatnot?

 

[N801BH]

Don't you think that maintaining navigation aids and radar sites is a manpower (and thus payroll) intensive endeavor compared to costs for parts and whatnot?

Considering you are a federal employee, I would expect that response from you.... All you guys are preprogrammed to expel the virtues of guvmint workers. That ship is sinking FAST,,, Sir.. IMHO.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Considering you are a federal employee, I would expect that response from you.... All you guys are preprogrammed to expel the virtues of guvmint workers. That ship is sinking FAST,,, Sir.. IMHO.

It was a simple question

As ADS-B is implemented and (theoretically) aids and radar sites are taken down, there would be a requisite reduction in manpower costs to maintain them? I don't know how much is contracted versus done in-house but I know in Alaska it is mostly FAA personnel doing that work.

 

[N801BH]

It was a simple question

.

See, there ya go again..... Spin it to try and evade the obvious... I live 100 feet from Grand teton National Park and have several friends that work there... The only guvment workers that work less and complain more then National Park Service workers are the deadbeats in the USPS..... The people you work under are 16 TRILLION dollars in debt.. I rest my case.

Ps... Don't get me started...

 

[denverpilot]

Sorry, I got this off-topic with the government waste comments. The point is, in other mandates, there were cut-outs for non-commercial ops away from the hubs. This seems subtly different.

 

[alaskaflyer]

See, there ya go again..... Spin it to try and evade the obvious... I live 100 feet from Grand teton National Park and have several friends that work there... The only guvment workers that work less and complain more then National Park Service workers are the deadbeats in the USPS..... The people you work under are 16 TRILLION dollars in debt.. I rest my case.

Ps... Don't get me started...

Apparently I already did though I'm at a loss as to how Whatever.

But I still don't understand how if sites have to be maintained, how someone can be so dismissive of the budgetary impact of...no longer having to maintain them? Perhaps except for the nuclear power and weapons industry or maybe the military, personnel costs are always going to be the most expensive part of a maintenance regime, not parts.

So if site maintenance is less than 1% of the FAA budget as you think (I've no idea, though considering the cost of ATC ops you might be close) then a large part of that less-than-1-percent is also payroll for the people doing it. My only point. And one would assume that much of ADSB will be contracted out for implementation, maintenance and operation, so that should make you happy?

 

[Anthony]

If it's OK to subject children and little old ladies to strip searches, it's certainly OK to squeeze out the "Rich Flyboys"

Well 90% or more of us here fly because we like it and it can get us places. Most of us here fly for pleasure. Let's face it, we can get places less expensively and easier much of the time.

I help PAY for the system through taxes, so it is for me the "hobbyist". Ted, I think you are wrong. Anybody that pays for the system, should be able to use it. Just because sometimes the only thing we are "getting done" is pleasureable flying, it is still one of the legitimate goals of General Aviation. Quite frankly, I think that statement wasn't very well thought out.

 

[Palmpilot]

It ain't about upgrading technology for higher density traffic, or any of the public stories -- it's about putting a data tag up at NORTHCOM on everything moving in the sky.

In that case, maybe funds to pay for it should be added to NORTHCOM's Congressional appropriation.

 

[denverpilot]

In that case, maybe funds to pay for it should be added to NORTHCOM's Congressional appropriation.

No argument here. Not possible that ere already isn't money allocated to update the software and displays so they can view the data collected by ADS-B however. Already there somewhere, or will be...

 

[Everskyward]

Denver International ended up being a very good idea. If you don't think so try flying into San Francisco when the it's anything approaching IFR. There are instant delays because the runways are too close for parallel ILSs.

 

[Palmpilot]

No argument here. Not possible that ere already isn't money allocated to update the software and displays so they can view the data collected by ADS-B however. Already there somewhere, or will be...

I was talking about the costs of installing equipment in aircraft. Why should the cost of a national defense need be imposed on a small segment of the population?