Except I don't see where "its been around for a while" since there is zero FAA guidance on VARMA. But the minute they do issue that guidance I have about a dozen items I will send to them for FAA approval. The way VARMA is supposedly written, the ACO will approve the item for installation which is no different than a PMA part. But without formal guidance its no more than a wish list from the EAA. Can't see where any A&P would not install it with an FAA approval on the part?
Not arguing. Can you clarify which regs have come into play since the 1970’s to make this a factor? That is, what specifically has changed in the regs since then to make this a significant factor in aviation participation?
There is a very healthy avgas-burning GA community in Florida. I’m in a group that has a weekly flyout with almost always more than 50 planes showing up, and several fly-ins with well in excess of 100 aircraft. The airport restaurants seem plenty busy. The A&Ps are busy and keeping their schedules full. I see a steady flow of small planes going over in all directions every day.
Having trouble aligning that one. The quote was regarding overall median income and aircraft costs between two different time periods. “Amongst who you know” is not a relevant comparative measure. The median US income is around $48,000 for all workers, $60,000 for full-time workers, and around $80,000 for households.
The problem is they don’t have to even change the regs for it to be an issue. This is the fundamental problem with the “agencies” of the federal government, they are truly judge, jury, and executioner on all their own regulations. They don’t want to keep writing field approvals for some random thing? They just won’t, even if there is no supporting legislation or regulation. They don’t reeeeally want to certify that new aircraft or engine design? Well… they just won’t. They don’t really feel like approving that new unleaded gas or expediting its review or even working together to get something done quickly even though the alternative is just to let the eco-lobby litigate GA out of existence? Well, no bother. It goes on and on and on and on and on, and yes, I am steamed about it because I have experienced their malfeasance personally. You said 70s, but all of Part 23, as an example - the entire corpus of design standards - was implemented in the late 60s, I believe, so there’s a giant rewrite of regulation if I must point to something but there’s plenty more, and in reality, it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t even have to be about actual regulations. With Chevron overturned, there is new hope for at least the judge, jury, and executioner problem, but plenty of issues still remain and it’s not like the average civilian GA pilot has the pocketbook to take on the government anyway.
It's the flux that matters - in WWII 435k pilots were trained in say 3-4 years. They then aged in place as a cohort that knew about and could fly. Today, the total number of pilots is only 50% higher than that, and those were trained over, say, 40 years. Personally think that's why sales peaked in late 1970s, when the big bolus from WWII were 35 years on and finally in a position to buy an airplane. Was a one and done thing, with sales dropping to near zero by mid-1980s. The liability bit was real, but if the market demand in 1985 was still 17k units per year, the liability issue would not have played the same role.
$200k? I have no idea where you’re getting that pie in the sky number, everything I see says the US median is around $80k. In my particular state the median household income is $67k.
From emissions standards to fuel economy standards to shoulder belts to airbags to TPMS to a list of things I can’t remember or know about, in the same period, cars have been subjected to literally an exponentially greater number of new regs yet they don’t seem to be dying as a transportation type. In fact, I’d really be curious to know what new regs Piper has to deal with when building a current Archer compared with 40 years ago.
Personally, I think cars have peaked and are on the decline.
Nah, cars are much better today. A new plebian Accord has the performance of a Mustang of 40 years ago, and a new Mustang has the performance of a true exotic from 40 years ago. Add in safety enhancements, and it's a win. They don't make them like they use to, and I'm damned glad.
Have you ever worked through an approval or worked with the FAA on an issue or topic generally? Have you heard about struggles related to medicals, unleaded gas, MOSAIC, how hard it was to get BasicMed done or further reform it, etc? My sense is that people who have not worked with the FAA tend to see them in a favorable light - the "Kinder, Gentler FAA" messaging has taken effect - and those that have actually worked with them, are uniformly disgusted.
Not sure which Class D airport you were at, but Georgetown in Central Texas is exactly what you described. For awhile they had the cheapest fuel in the area, but you'd better be ready to sit for 10 minutes waiting to take off.
But they’re disposable, not repairable.
I don’t know if I agree with that. When I was growing up, a car was pretty much crap at 60,000 miles. Now people regularly get 200,000 miles out of cars without many repairs at all.
And the average age of aircraft that participate? Like going to antique car shows around here.
But you could overhaul the engine and transmission and repair other parts for a reasonable price. Now it’s a new engine and transmission from the factory that cost more than I paid for the car.
Quite a wide range. Everything from the mid 1930s to Phase 1. I’d say the overall percentage is shifting toward newer aircraft, with the majority from the 1970s. The increase in Cirrus and Carbon Cubs in particular, along with RVs, is noticeable in just the last few years.
At the risk of sounding argumentative, if one could fly IFR just on your driver’s license, could use a $100 Walmart tablet for navigation, and could use a Gates alternator belt off the shelf, I think the amount of GA flying would go up but not by much. Yes, regs are a factor (and I’d contend, as I have before, that most regs are because someone did something unexpected/stupid to warrant them to protect others) but I just don’t see it as in, say, the top 5 (10?) contributing factors. I’m open to seeing otherwise, though.
Ok, even if you could double the life of the mechanicals (by overhauls) in a 70’s car it would still be eaten up by rust by 120k.
Don't worry, I'm sure landing fees will soon fix that problem for you!
You do understand that cars were built both before and after the ‘70s, right?
Median income in the US is not close to $200k. Latest data is $70k.
Absolutely. This is why we need to fight to keep airports open - Every airport that closes takes a little of the value away from all of the airports that remain open.
That's why it's such a popular market segment. Cirrus is killing everyone on new sales, and there's a reason "Bonanza" is our default answer here for used. I use my Mooney to great effect, and Comanches have held their value well as a way to have a great traveling airplane on a lower purchase budget.
Maintenance is becoming a huge issue. The pilot shortage has nothing on the mechanic shortage.
"Some of them are pretty pricey"??? There's not a plane in your post except the DA40 that comes in under a million dollars new - 12x median income.
Well, again, I don't even really think it is an issue of regulations, per se, but of bureaucratic incompetence and inertia (but also regulation, fwiw). While you might not list regulation and bureaucratic inertia as a top-5 cause of the decline of GA, I bet you would list "cost". My point here is that cost (and also any number of other negative factors) is driven by that same bureaucratic incompetence and inertia. In this sense, cost is the symptom and the FAA's incompetence and inertia is the disease. Like I said, the FAA sets the field that we all - indeed the entire industry - plays on.
