The slowly death of General Aviation in the U.S.
- Thread starter jafra98
- Start date
SteveCostello
My member is well-known.
Those figures are very close for this 172 I'm talking about. $7,000 buy-in, monthly is at $100, and hourly is $66 (based off the tach). That's it. No other funny business, unless all 7 owners agree to an upgrade of some sort. It is IFR GPS, and the plane appears to be in excellent condition. Ownership comes with access to what is apparently decent online scheduling, at least one of the remaining owners doesn't really fly any more, and the schedule has a high-level of availability. Another one of the owners just got their CFI, so there is access to that now, as well.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Definitely worth considering Steve. Like any business partnership, your satisfaction will probably come down to the people involved. A good partnership should have very clearly defined rules about how you'll handle maintenance and upgrades. Otherwise you get into arguments about when things should get fixed, people get PO'd when you chew up tires as student, or the 5 out of 7 pilots who only fly VFR dont want to pay for GPS subscriptions... things like that.
As for value, you have to sort of think of the $7,000 as a capital investment that will probably have zero return which is not a bad rate compared to a lot of stocks and funds now days! But, realize an airplane share is not very liquid and might take a year or more to sell if you decide to.
SteveCostello
My member is well-known.
Oh, I definitely figure on that last bit. This listing has been on Craiglist for about 9 months, and I imagine that isn't the only place it is being shown.
jafra98
Well-Known Member
Guest Editorial: The Death of General Aviation?
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.
Therefore; this editorial is meant to evoke thought and discussion for all that want GA to grow and be what it was always meant to be. Throughout this editorial; I will draw comparisons to other private transportation modes, mostly automobiles.
Why do we have one that is highly regulated and the other only lightly regulated?
First let's run through some background for our discussion. Piston engine aircraft -- new sales -- have been declining for years. This year GAMA is reporting that only 634 piston aircraft were sold worldwide. If that trend continues; there cannot be a viable ecosystem for us to use. There has not been a NEW piston airframe certified by the FAA since the Cirrus SR20 and Diamond DA-42 in 1999. That is over a decade ago. The cost of new aircraft has significantly exceeded inflation since 1970 and grown exponentially in the last 30 years.
Aircraft manufacturers and parts suppliers, when asked why aren't they designing new products, cite their number one reason as the cost to get them "Certified." Some have said it would cost upwards of $150 to $200 Million to do the FAA part (for a new aircraft design). This is over and above their own design and engineering costs. All of us have to pay for that effort as the chart above clearly shows. When you ask a manufacturer why they have not improved their product; they cite the time and cost for FAA certification. Many say there is no way to predict how the FAA will review their product and when they will complete their "Certification". This introduces unknowns and uncertainty to the process. In addition to the acquisition cost; there is the operations and maintenance cost of owning a Part 23 aircraft. Annual inspections and having to use "Certified" parts being two that drive up cost significantly. The next being fuel cost since the specialized fuel is not used/made in large economic(al) quantities.
What do we get for this unique government oversight of our Private mode of transportation? One that does not exist for automobiles or boats. This oversight has not been always around. It started in 1934. The Part 23 oversight has been reviewed a few times by the FAA. The last review was conducted in 2008/2009 and before that, in 1984.
You can read the full report here.
This comprehensive study had participants from the associations that represent us; AOPA and EAA. They were chartered to do a complete review of the process and could offer any recommendations or changes that they felt were necessary to support General Aviation for the next 20 years. From my review of their report; none of their recommendations will address the pain that the FAA is causing and which the report and chart above (from their own report) highlighted. The recommendations were about reclassifying the way the aircraft and rules apply, but not the rules and costly process themselves.
So why do we have this massive government oversight and what is it BUYING for us? The first reason I have heard is that it is because planes cross state borders and we don't want 50 states trying to regulate aircraft. Ok, but so do cars and boats. The biggest one I have seen, is that we must have this government regulation because we must protect the public and citizens. Ok, if that were true then we should have massively more oversight and regulations for automobiles. There were 30,797 fatal accidents in 2009 in Automobiles, killing 33,808 persons of which 4,872 were non-occupants or innocent by-standers. There were 2,217,000 injuries. The economic cost of traffic crashes was reported as $230.6 Billon. The 2009 NALL report from AOPA lists 1271 accidents, of which 241 were fatal, for non-commercial fixed wing aircraft. Of those, only 178 were attributed to Mechanical/Maintenance -- of which only 18 were fatal. This includes amateur built and LSA, as well. Some like to say that certified aircraft are safer than amateur built, but interestingly there were only 49 A-B accidents attributed to mechanical issues with only 7 deaths. I could not find data for 2009 on how many non-flying persons were injured by GA aircraft, but in 2005; there were 4 fatalities and 17 injuries, so it is not like GA is a menace to the public. Autos killfar more innocent bystanders. So, if the government were trying to provide the MOST good for its citizens; then there should be more government oversight of automobiles than GA airplanes.
Ok, so if the FAA study did not do a true analysis of their role in the GA certification process; what would you think if we did? Given the background and facts above; do we really need a huge bureaucracy to regulate this small number of planes? Remember, there are only 300,000 registered GA aircraft and about 624,000 active pilots. There are probably less than 10,000 aircraft flying each day. I, for one, would much rather the FAA devote its limited manpower and budget to moving to NEXTGEN and insuring that the National Airspace System is working optimally.
So here is my recommendation for the NEW Part 23 process. I recommend it be no different than automobiles. They move the same people. One is working -- with new innovation and cost reductions -- and one is dying. I am ok with the government specifying limited criteria, and safety items, similar to what they do for cars. Just as an example; did you know that the seat fabric standard for automobiles was higher than for planes? The FAA could do a very limited testing of new models of aircraft similar to what the NHSA does for crash test of automobiles. There would not be a TYPE CERTIFICATE and PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE process, and parts and components would not have to be certified. It should be limited to validating the manufactures claims on flight envelope, safety, and compliance with the new significantly reduced regulation that mirrors what exists for automobiles. I further propose that we let the free market drive the design and innovation of planes -- just like we do for cars. This would apply to Part 91 -- only. I also recommend that we do away with the "Annual" and just have a safety inspection like we have for cars. All other maintenance is up to the owner's desires -- based on the recommendations from the manufacturer. Again, just like you have on cars, there would be no requirement to have an FAA certified/licensed mechanic maintain your plane. We have seen that aircraft maintenance is not significantly better than automobile maintenance.
I know this sounds radical. Any major change is. What do I think would happen? There would be a significant resurgence in demand. As volume and market forces start to work; costs would come down drastically. New products, engines, avionics, etc., would come to market. Choices for the consumer/pilot would increase and the free market would drive (GA) where new products happen. On the safety side; there may be more accidents, but more so because there would be many new pilots. The normal pilot errors not attributed to mechanical/maintenance would still exist, but that is where the FAA could focus their efforts and have the biggest impact. There would be some design/mechanical accidents and deaths. Here, the market will work. Others will not buy those products, remember the Pinto and Corvair? The FAA could do what NHSA does and order recalls of design faults. Here, an improvement would be that the manufacturer would have to pay to have it fixed unlike the current AD process. But it is my honest belief that the number of accidents would not grow significantly for mechanical issues because the FAA is not weeding out that much BAD design/engineering today. It is just driving up the cost of it, and there is actually a case to be made that they are slowing or even stopping design improvements in products -- because of certification cost which is having a bad safety effect. Look at our engines; they are 1930s technology with very few improvements. Not because there are no known improvements, but because of cost.
So in conclusion; this is another clear example of how government, trying to help and provide a service to its citizens, is actually killing what it is regulating. Remember that Congress removed the requirement for the FAA to have to encourage and develop civil aviation from its mission in 2009. I have not found any cost/benefit studies on the Part 23 topic. I wish that some other outside the government group would do a thorough analysis. What true benefits are we getting from this oversight and more importantly what is it costing us in $, innovation, and market?
Since man started to fly; there has been a dream that everyone would be able to fly. There was the same dream for automobiles when they were created. One has occurred, for the most part, in the US.
One has not.
The difference is government oversight. Let's try an experiment of freeing up the people and see what happens. Now is the perfect time to do this. Our President has directed that all government regulations be reviewed for what is impacting business, killing jobs and innovation. This is the perfect time to have the Part 23 regulations rescinded and I bet that our OEMs (and even new ones) will come back to the market and start hiring and doing incredible things. We still need to relook at the Part 91 and Part 61 FARs but that will be for another editorial. What can you do; tell the associations they need to develop a Policy plan for how to rescind Part 23 and replace it with a system similar to automobiles. Then we can go to Congress enmasse and make our case. Since we are not the ones killing innocent people, and our deaths are less than automobiles; it should be clear that this is an area we can reduce government intervention.
It is a start -- and there is more to do, I know. Just imagine what GA would look like if we had real growth and more citizens using it. We would have more GA airports. We would have more companies providing services. It is possible; we just need to demand that our government get out of our lives where they are not adding real value. We need to do this before it is too late and GA dies away completely.
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.
Therefore; this editorial is meant to evoke thought and discussion for all that want GA to grow and be what it was always meant to be. Throughout this editorial; I will draw comparisons to other private transportation modes, mostly automobiles.
Why do we have one that is highly regulated and the other only lightly regulated?
First let's run through some background for our discussion. Piston engine aircraft -- new sales -- have been declining for years. This year GAMA is reporting that only 634 piston aircraft were sold worldwide. If that trend continues; there cannot be a viable ecosystem for us to use. There has not been a NEW piston airframe certified by the FAA since the Cirrus SR20 and Diamond DA-42 in 1999. That is over a decade ago. The cost of new aircraft has significantly exceeded inflation since 1970 and grown exponentially in the last 30 years.
Aircraft manufacturers and parts suppliers, when asked why aren't they designing new products, cite their number one reason as the cost to get them "Certified." Some have said it would cost upwards of $150 to $200 Million to do the FAA part (for a new aircraft design). This is over and above their own design and engineering costs. All of us have to pay for that effort as the chart above clearly shows. When you ask a manufacturer why they have not improved their product; they cite the time and cost for FAA certification. Many say there is no way to predict how the FAA will review their product and when they will complete their "Certification". This introduces unknowns and uncertainty to the process. In addition to the acquisition cost; there is the operations and maintenance cost of owning a Part 23 aircraft. Annual inspections and having to use "Certified" parts being two that drive up cost significantly. The next being fuel cost since the specialized fuel is not used/made in large economic(al) quantities.
What do we get for this unique government oversight of our Private mode of transportation? One that does not exist for automobiles or boats. This oversight has not been always around. It started in 1934. The Part 23 oversight has been reviewed a few times by the FAA. The last review was conducted in 2008/2009 and before that, in 1984.
This comprehensive study had participants from the associations that represent us; AOPA and EAA. They were chartered to do a complete review of the process and could offer any recommendations or changes that they felt were necessary to support General Aviation for the next 20 years. From my review of their report; none of their recommendations will address the pain that the FAA is causing and which the report and chart above (from their own report) highlighted. The recommendations were about reclassifying the way the aircraft and rules apply, but not the rules and costly process themselves.
So why do we have this massive government oversight and what is it BUYING for us? The first reason I have heard is that it is because planes cross state borders and we don't want 50 states trying to regulate aircraft. Ok, but so do cars and boats. The biggest one I have seen, is that we must have this government regulation because we must protect the public and citizens. Ok, if that were true then we should have massively more oversight and regulations for automobiles. There were 30,797 fatal accidents in 2009 in Automobiles, killing 33,808 persons of which 4,872 were non-occupants or innocent by-standers. There were 2,217,000 injuries. The economic cost of traffic crashes was reported as $230.6 Billon. The 2009 NALL report from AOPA lists 1271 accidents, of which 241 were fatal, for non-commercial fixed wing aircraft. Of those, only 178 were attributed to Mechanical/Maintenance -- of which only 18 were fatal. This includes amateur built and LSA, as well. Some like to say that certified aircraft are safer than amateur built, but interestingly there were only 49 A-B accidents attributed to mechanical issues with only 7 deaths. I could not find data for 2009 on how many non-flying persons were injured by GA aircraft, but in 2005; there were 4 fatalities and 17 injuries, so it is not like GA is a menace to the public. Autos killfar more innocent bystanders. So, if the government were trying to provide the MOST good for its citizens; then there should be more government oversight of automobiles than GA airplanes.
Ok, so if the FAA study did not do a true analysis of their role in the GA certification process; what would you think if we did? Given the background and facts above; do we really need a huge bureaucracy to regulate this small number of planes? Remember, there are only 300,000 registered GA aircraft and about 624,000 active pilots. There are probably less than 10,000 aircraft flying each day. I, for one, would much rather the FAA devote its limited manpower and budget to moving to NEXTGEN and insuring that the National Airspace System is working optimally.
So here is my recommendation for the NEW Part 23 process. I recommend it be no different than automobiles. They move the same people. One is working -- with new innovation and cost reductions -- and one is dying. I am ok with the government specifying limited criteria, and safety items, similar to what they do for cars. Just as an example; did you know that the seat fabric standard for automobiles was higher than for planes? The FAA could do a very limited testing of new models of aircraft similar to what the NHSA does for crash test of automobiles. There would not be a TYPE CERTIFICATE and PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE process, and parts and components would not have to be certified. It should be limited to validating the manufactures claims on flight envelope, safety, and compliance with the new significantly reduced regulation that mirrors what exists for automobiles. I further propose that we let the free market drive the design and innovation of planes -- just like we do for cars. This would apply to Part 91 -- only. I also recommend that we do away with the "Annual" and just have a safety inspection like we have for cars. All other maintenance is up to the owner's desires -- based on the recommendations from the manufacturer. Again, just like you have on cars, there would be no requirement to have an FAA certified/licensed mechanic maintain your plane. We have seen that aircraft maintenance is not significantly better than automobile maintenance.
I know this sounds radical. Any major change is. What do I think would happen? There would be a significant resurgence in demand. As volume and market forces start to work; costs would come down drastically. New products, engines, avionics, etc., would come to market. Choices for the consumer/pilot would increase and the free market would drive (GA) where new products happen. On the safety side; there may be more accidents, but more so because there would be many new pilots. The normal pilot errors not attributed to mechanical/maintenance would still exist, but that is where the FAA could focus their efforts and have the biggest impact. There would be some design/mechanical accidents and deaths. Here, the market will work. Others will not buy those products, remember the Pinto and Corvair? The FAA could do what NHSA does and order recalls of design faults. Here, an improvement would be that the manufacturer would have to pay to have it fixed unlike the current AD process. But it is my honest belief that the number of accidents would not grow significantly for mechanical issues because the FAA is not weeding out that much BAD design/engineering today. It is just driving up the cost of it, and there is actually a case to be made that they are slowing or even stopping design improvements in products -- because of certification cost which is having a bad safety effect. Look at our engines; they are 1930s technology with very few improvements. Not because there are no known improvements, but because of cost.
So in conclusion; this is another clear example of how government, trying to help and provide a service to its citizens, is actually killing what it is regulating. Remember that Congress removed the requirement for the FAA to have to encourage and develop civil aviation from its mission in 2009. I have not found any cost/benefit studies on the Part 23 topic. I wish that some other outside the government group would do a thorough analysis. What true benefits are we getting from this oversight and more importantly what is it costing us in $, innovation, and market?
Since man started to fly; there has been a dream that everyone would be able to fly. There was the same dream for automobiles when they were created. One has occurred, for the most part, in the US.
One has not.
The difference is government oversight. Let's try an experiment of freeing up the people and see what happens. Now is the perfect time to do this. Our President has directed that all government regulations be reviewed for what is impacting business, killing jobs and innovation. This is the perfect time to have the Part 23 regulations rescinded and I bet that our OEMs (and even new ones) will come back to the market and start hiring and doing incredible things. We still need to relook at the Part 91 and Part 61 FARs but that will be for another editorial. What can you do; tell the associations they need to develop a Policy plan for how to rescind Part 23 and replace it with a system similar to automobiles. Then we can go to Congress enmasse and make our case. Since we are not the ones killing innocent people, and our deaths are less than automobiles; it should be clear that this is an area we can reduce government intervention.
It is a start -- and there is more to do, I know. Just imagine what GA would look like if we had real growth and more citizens using it. We would have more GA airports. We would have more companies providing services. It is possible; we just need to demand that our government get out of our lives where they are not adding real value. We need to do this before it is too late and GA dies away completely.
jrh
Well-Known Member
Intriguing article.
Here is the problem I think the author is neglecting to account for: Airplanes go hundreds of miles per hour, move in three dimensions, and must be calibrated to significantly higher standards than cars. Sometimes I think, because aviation's safety statistics are so impressive, it's easy for people to forget how quickly an airplane can kill you when something goes amiss. The environment we operate in is much less forgiving of mistakes than automobiles.
Airplanes have literally torn themselves apart in flight due to minor miscalculations/miscalibrations with flight controls. They've caught fire in flight when electrical wiring is improperly connected. Their engines have failed when nuts, bolts, and lines aren't tightened to the correct values. These are not problems, with potentially fatal consequences, experienced by cars.
One of my good friends from college was nearly killed last winter when the elevator on his Brasilia partially separated in flight. I'm sure the NTSB will document the case thoroughly, but it ultimately boiled down to improper maintenance involving automotive grade bolts.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20120217X44044&key=1
Look at Avantair as a very fresh example of the stakes we're playing with when it comes to aircraft design and maintenance.
I understand where the author was coming from, wanting to streamline and reduce regulations. I agree it would, at least temporarily, boost the industry. But I'm afraid we'd be opening up Pandora's box of unintended negative consequences in the long term.
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Well, look at the LSA movement, you see quite a few airplanes now that were strictly plans and kit built for a decade or two and now they're popping up as LSA certified with the same parts and same car/snowmobile engines powering them and even with simple owner maintenance certification options available. I see the CH-750 is now available as a factory built LSA for $75,000... now we're moving in the right direction instead of $125,000 LSA's this is starting to look realistic.
Is there a difference between a two seat Zenith CH-750 and say, a King Air, yes but the proof that the LSA movement has shown is that with simpler certification standards, it's possible to produce new airplanes for the GA fleet which do not require the craziness of part 23 certification currently. Perhaps even more categorization would help, allowing simpler standards for aircraft of different speed and weight groups... dunno... something's gotta give though.
Is there a difference between a two seat Zenith CH-750 and say, a King Air, yes but the proof that the LSA movement has shown is that with simpler certification standards, it's possible to produce new airplanes for the GA fleet which do not require the craziness of part 23 certification currently. Perhaps even more categorization would help, allowing simpler standards for aircraft of different speed and weight groups... dunno... something's gotta give though.
🦈💜
Well-Known Member
It's easy to take for granted, that's for sure... the editorial strikes me as fairly ignorant. A graded set of standards, depending on intended use, number of seats, speed and weight might make more sense, but when I climb in a Cessna 152 and see that standard airworthiness certificate, it's nice to know that I don't have to worry about whether wood screws were used to put it together.
The problem is that the certification process should protect both ways -- It should protect the pilot and passengers, but it should also protect the company to no small degree: Demonstrating that a design is airworthy per 14 cfr part 23 should be prima facie evidence that failure of a certified component was not due to design defect.
Ahwell.
~Fox
drunkenbeagle
Gang Member
jafra98
Well-Known Member
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Stoply, you're killingly me slowerly now to than.
ROFLY!
SteveCostello
My member is well-known.
This. I love this thread... but man, do I ever hate this title. No offense to the OP. My eyes bleed, my brain hurts, and the Grammar Nazi in me becomes hard to control.
I'm experiencing $50-55/hour maintenance costs in my 2004 C-172R with NAV II package. That's excluding TBO reserves, hangar, fuel, insurance, GPS datacards, washes, etc. - just turning wrenches, inspecting, replacing fluids & filters, and repairing & replacing broken stuff (tires, bulbs, hoses). It's managed by a top-notch flight school, and part of the agreement is that when they say that something needs to be fixed, it gets fixed. It gets flown a lot, but they teach excellent standards & practices, the renter checkout is rigorous, and it's priced above the market for a typical Skyhawk (that keeps the riff-raff flying other airplanes).
SteveCostello
My member is well-known.
Holy smokes. Is this typical? Per flight hour, you need to set aside $50 for standard maintenance? Does this include your annual and things that come up in the annual?
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Holy crap dude, that sounds ridiculous. Is the flight school also doing (read: profiting from) the maintenance?
rframe
pǝʇɹǝʌuı
Short little blog/article regarding ASTM (LSA certification rules)...
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/...92b670b2b-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
I am very encouraged reading this, but not sure what changes he's referring to. Does anybody know what changes are in works for Part 23 that are adapting this methodology for certification rules?
http://www.generalaviationnews.com/...92b670b2b-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email
"...it’s pretty dry stuff but it is the way such a staggering development of 128 new models of LSA has been possible in just seven years, an accomplishment not replicated anywhere in aviation, worldwide, since airplanes first flew. That would not be possible when using government certification systems.
So successful has it been that the FAA is now moving with surprising swiftness toward a similar system for Part 23 or regularly Type Certified aircraft, such as Cessnas and Cirruses."
I am very encouraged reading this, but not sure what changes he's referring to. Does anybody know what changes are in works for Part 23 that are adapting this methodology for certification rules?