FAA, Let us make our planes safer!

[LJS1993]

wouldn't it be cool if more devices and "safety innovations" actually made a measurable improvement in safety? But example after example says they don't, going all the way back to the unstallable unspinnable ungroundloopable ercoupe that had a fatal accident rate higher than luscombs and aeroncas of the same vintage.

Jeff aside from just making good decisions what is in your mind the number one safety enhancement a pilot can add to their aircraft?

 

[wabower]

Yeah but it would have worked as planned if the designers had just made it unmushable and unsinkable

wouldn't it be cool if more devices and "safety innovations" actually made a measurable improvement in safety? But example after example says they don't, going all the way back to the unstallable unspinnable ungroundloopable ercoupe that had a fatal accident rate higher than luscombs and aeroncas of the same vintage.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Yeah we need cheap full autopilots so we can drink and fly safely.
The Peltzman Effect
by Alex Tabarrok on July 6, 2010 at 7:16 am in Economics | Permalink
The NHTSA had volunteers drive a test track in cars with automatic lane departure correction, and then interviewed the drivers for their impressions. Although the report does not describe the undoubted look of horror on the examiner’s face while interviewing one female, 20-something subject, it does relay the gist of her comments.

After she praised the ability of the car to self-correct when she drifted from her lane, she noted that she would love to have this feature in her own car. Then, after a night of drinking in the city, she would not have to sleep at a friend’s house before returning to her rural home.

From CSV. The Peltzman effect doesn’t mean that improvements in safety are always negated but it does remind us that we can never ignore the human response.

- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2010/07/my-entry-1.html#sthash.Ov91Zs5g.dpuf

 

[JHW]

Jeff aside from just making good decisions what is in your mind the number one safety enhancement a pilot can add to their aircraft?

no question - shoulder harnesses. I wouldn't be alive today without them.

 

[Bill Watson]

I actually read every single post here. Very interesting and thought provoking discussion. Thanks.

It occurs to me that the market and the FAA have been responding to much of what people seem to want, albeit slowly. E-AB points toward many of the answers. The existence of LSAs and other regulatory 'innovations' is the FAA's response.

A factory built LSA is just a couple steps short of what a number of people would like, that is a factory built experimental (say an RV-10 or 14) unencumbered by some of the costs of full certification. The primary restriction not being performance but rather being not-for-hire.

Random comments....

I'm not necessarily in agreement with you on the avionics tangent. i don't see very many electronics in experimentals that I want but cannot put in my rig.

True enough but the price is a big difference. Easily 100% different.

The rules are different because experimental means there is no required testing rigor, and certified means there is.

.. That's the very essence of the matter.

Because of the FAA restrictions on where and how I can fly an experimental.

Now really as so many have commented. Not-for-Hire being the main restriction. Please allow your head to be pulled out of the sand on the E/AB issues - it's closer to where you want things to go than you know.

I want an entire plane, in one piece. They make
"kits" not "planes" (Save for their LSA). If Vans decided to assemble and sell an RV-10 that fell under the exact same regulations that it would have if Jim Bob had tossed the kit together in his garage, I'd be interested. That's the insanity to me. The guy who designs it can't put it together but any guy with enough money to order a tail kit can?

Step at a time... The factory build LSA is a start. A factory built experimental is a logical next step that hopefull will be taken.

Experimental aircraft are the future of recreational GA. No mainstream aircraft manufacturer has matched their unique combination of wonderful performance, amazing support, and quality at a reasonable price.

Gulp that Kool Aid! The ruling class and all their certified expensive ac have their place in the future too.

My apologies, I assumed your political point of view endorses all that is the European model of politics, health care and aviation regulation.

Ear splitting unneccessary static

It is also because I don't want restrictions on where or how people are allowed to fly in equally safe aircraft.

I don't want restrictions on who can or cannot build the aircraft. There ought to be a way to buy an affordable factory-build aircraft that can be maintained and improved safely within the law.

You see, I'm not specifically aiming my complaint upon my own needs. I am basing it on the problem of letting GA be as safe as possible. For you as well as for anyone else who wants to fly.

We seem to be moving, slowly, in that direction for recreational/personal aircraft that are not for hire. The 'safe as possible' thing is a canard though. I think it is about reasonable safety at a lower cost.

Oh, and don't think of E/AB as necessarily being the solution: there are folks in the NTSB and FAA that would LOVE to impose more regulations.

Perhaps a solution would be to allow certified planes to be moved into Experimental status, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

E/AB does point to the solution. The NTSB and FAA will always respond to safety issues with more regs - look how effective they are at improving safety in the scheduled carriers. They also respond to concerns about cost and enabling new technologies, thus LSAs and Sport Pilots and a reasoned approach to defining the 51% rule in E/ABs.

Peggy, what you have shown through this thread is that people like you are the reason the regulations exist. They are there so that people who don't know better are prevented from doing things that they think are improvements but really aren't.

Not meant as an insult, just an observation.

Yep.

I think it's more an FAA issue. The whole thing behind E-AB is that it was built by some guy in his garage, at least so goes the theory. Some of the E-AB "owner assist" setups are pretty much getting a plane from the factory these days, but they figure out how to get that 51% just barely. Then there's the aspect of someone wanting to get the plane back to Normal cert, if it were ever desired.

I don't see the hangup, personally, but the right heads need to get locked in a room and not let out until they solve the problem.

Long view, I think the FAA has been responding. Please don't lock anyone in a room until they have an answer or we'll never get anywhere. It's an evolving process with a lot of factors. And technology keeps moving the out of bounds lines. Without affordable CNC equipment, most of the uptick in E/AB kit aircraft would not have occurred. Without the Web, many of those guys in a garage would not successful. Today's typical kit builder is actually part of an extended team collaborating online.

Is this something AOPA/ EAA advocacy could positively effect? Or are these institutions as worthless as they are described on this board? I figured writing my senator would do little in the way of spearheading momentum towards getting my piper arrow Ok'd for Owner-EXP....

They are positively effecting this stuff. Look at all the changes and growth around recreational flying and E/AB aircraft.

My friend has his inspection today. From talking to his friends, it's more or less a control check, paperwork check, and that's about it. Let's not confuse this with anything near the rigor of a certification effort for a plane.

Absolutely true. Of course the planes themselves have become sophisticated enough that a single inspection of the final product cannot possibly be effective.

At the same time, there are a number of informal, more grass roots things that often take place to prevent the worst abuses. Voluntary periodic inspections by EAA designated Tech Counselors is one very good thing. Another is just people doing the right thing. A couple of pilots and mechanics see a project that just shouldn't take the air, the word goes around. Finally the FSDO or their designated inspectors are faced with approving a project that they have personally but informally been told is unairworthy and always will be so. Talk about personal liability....

 

[flyingcheesehead]

something is wrong there. Even buying the seals from beechcraft I rebuilt mine for ~$15 in parts and about 3 hours of my time.

Well, it's nice if you can maintain the plane yourself - Not everyone can. And it doesn't sound like anything is wrong based on your description... Here's the tab from the latest one this month (the 2nd one this year!):

Nose Strut Seal Kit $15.38
2 pints hydraulic fluid $9.78
2.5 hours of labor $185.00
Consumables $9.25
Sales Tax $1.89
Total: $221.30

 

[ronnieh]

I fail to see the correlation between auto and aircraft. It is a given that cars are much safer today than 50 years ago. But, what is meant by safer.
Some items can help prevent the accident and others can make the accident more survivable. On preventing the accident: Better tires, antilock brakes, better suspensions, active stability enhancement. I am sure there are others. I do not think GPS, XM radio, digital speedometers, high wattage sound systems with multiple speakers do much to enhance safety in any way.
Other items make the crash more survivable: Stronger doors, seatbelts and shoulder harness, stronger seats, passenger cages, collapsible steering columns, airbags, padded dash, front end crush zones, safety glass and other things I am forgetting. These items make crashes from perhaps 30 or 40 mph much more survivable. Planes do not crash at 40 mph. Very few crashes (sudden stop) at 100+mph in a modern automobile, available to the public, would be considered survivable.

What items do you propose for GA that would make 100+mph crashes survivable? How much weight would be added.

LJS in post 270 said that until planes come with comparable safety features of cars at an affordable price, safety will always be an issue in GA. Therefore, I think safety will always be an issue in GA with little improvement in survivability.

Are their uncertified items that should be installed/invented/allowed on aircraft to decrease the likelihood of an accident? Perhaps, though I have not seen much of a list.

General aviation aircraft by design and necessity are flimsy, light, archaic and dangerous. One could perhaps design a safer C172 but it would most likely take a pair of TIO 540's to get it off the ground.

 

[JHW]

Well, it's nice if you can maintain the plane yourself - Not everyone can.

Maybe someone will help you. I don't know what your disability is, but I have a friend who is missing a hand, and while he can fly just fine he struggles with tasks like this. Safety wire is his biggest nemesis but one of us is always willing to help him out.

 

[bnt83]

Maybe someone will help you. I don't know what your disability is, but I have a friend who is missing a hand, and while he can fly just fine he struggles with tasks like this. Safety wire is his biggest nemesis but one of us is always willing to help him out.

I have friends who help with the safety wire too.

 

[wsuffa]

None of what you have suggested will make flying safer.

When are you installing your AoA indicator with audible warnings? That will very much help prevent stall/spins when used properly, and is an FAA minor change, not requiring a 337 and easy to install.

Unless you tie it into the flap system. From what I can tell, the available AOAs calibrate at one particular flap position, which may or may not be a valid calibration at other flap positions. AOA is a lot more useful if it can be used at all levels of flap deployment.

We seem to be moving, slowly, in that direction for recreational/personal aircraft that are not for hire. The 'safe as possible' thing is a canard though. I think it is about reasonable safety at a lower cost.
E/AB does point to the solution. The NTSB and FAA will always respond to safety issues with more regs - look how effective they are at improving safety in the scheduled carriers. They also respond to concerns about cost and enabling new technologies, thus LSAs and Sport Pilots and a reasoned approach to defining the 51% rule in E/ABs.

1) "Safe as possible" a/k/a "out of abundance of caution" has permeated our politcal structure and regulatory class. No longer is it good enough to provide information to folks & let them make the right decision to them... it's about implementing a lowest-common-denominator standard the substitutes group-think and government standards for judgement. E/AB bypasses some of that, but there are plenty that would impose more restrictions in the name of risk avoidance.

2) NTSB will tell you that FAA has not been effective enough because they haven't implemented enough rules. Many of the big safety improvements in scheduled carriers came through cooperative efforts with the carriers and changes to training and operating procedures (which are not necessarily laid out in regulations). Look at the CRM discussion we had in the Asiana thread. Paperwork never (in and of itself) fixed safety issues.

3) With aging aircraft, this will come to a head at some point where parts availability is problematic - or where manufacturers are no longer around. Or they set life limits that can't be violated, requiring planned fleet obselescence. Part of the problem is liability - manufacturers have a much better argument if they complied with certification standards & were approved by the government. It gives them arguable defense.

--------
Speaking of new technologies, what's the story with DeltaHawk's diesel engines? Will they actually come to market?

 

[LJS1993]

I fail to see the correlation between auto and aircraft. It is a given that cars are much safer today than 50 years ago. But, what is meant by safer.
Some items can help prevent the accident and others can make the accident more survivable. On preventing the accident: Better tires, antilock brakes, better suspensions, active stability enhancement. I am sure there are others. I do not think GPS, XM radio, digital speedometers, high wattage sound systems with multiple speakers do much to enhance safety in any way.
Other items make the crash more survivable: Stronger doors, seatbelts and shoulder harness, stronger seats, passenger cages, collapsible steering columns, airbags, padded dash, front end crush zones, safety glass and other things I am forgetting. These items make crashes from perhaps 30 or 40 mph much more survivable. Planes do not crash at 40 mph. Very few crashes (sudden stop) at 100+mph in a modern automobile, available to the public, would be considered survivable.

What items do you propose for GA that would make 100+mph crashes survivable? How much weight would be added.

LJS in post 270 said that until planes come with comparable safety features of cars at an affordable price, safety will always be an issue in GA. Therefore, I think safety will always be an issue in GA with little improvement in survivability.

Are their uncertified items that should be installed/invented/allowed on aircraft to decrease the likelihood of an accident? Perhaps, though I have not seen much of a list.

General aviation aircraft by design and necessity are flimsy, light, archaic and dangerous. One could perhaps design a safer C172 but it would most likely take a pair of TIO 540's to get it off the ground.

Ronnie to me that is very disappointing. Why should general aviation HAVE to have aircraft that is light and archaic?

 

[JHW]

Ronnie to me that is very disappointing. Why should general aviation HAVE to have aircraft that is light and archaic?

for my part, I WANT the lighter plane. Weight makes everything perform worse. As for "archaic" there haven't been any new lightplane airfoils invented in the last half a century, unless you count some of the slat and slot jobs on experimental supercubs

 

[Ted]

Unless you tie it into the flap system. From what I can tell, the available AOAs calibrate at one particular flap position, which may or may not be a valid calibration at other flap positions. AOA is a lot more useful if it can be used at all levels of flap deployment.

True, but the lack of connection to the flap system just means it warns you a hair earlier. Not really a problem to my mind when used properly.

Speaking of new technologies, what's the story with DeltaHawk's diesel engines? Will they actually come to market?

It looks promising, especially since they're going slowly. I like that. Continental also has some good technology going into diesels. Basically I would suspect that within 10 years we'll be seeing diesels in most if not all new piston aircraft, and STCs will be popping up for the legacy fleet as appropriate. DeltaHawk is a good technology for the latter since it's weight is closest to stock. But the 2-stroke diesel does take an efficiency hit vs 4-stroke.

 

[bnt83]

True, but the lack of connection to the flap system just means it warns you a hair earlier. Not really a problem to my mind when used properly.



It looks promising, especially since they're going slowly. I like that. Continental also has some good technology going into diesels. Basically I would suspect that within 10 years we'll be seeing diesels in most if not all new piston aircraft, and STCs will be popping up for the legacy fleet as appropriate. DeltaHawk is a good technology for the latter since it's weight is closest to stock. But the 2-stroke diesel does take an efficiency hit vs 4-stroke.

My biggest concern is, are these gonna have some TCDS restriction on TBO's? They like to sneak stuff like that into new designs....

 

[JHW]

But the 2-stroke diesel does take an efficiency hit vs 4-stroke.

not necessarily. But where it does take a hit is altitude restart unless you make some performance compromises with the blower.

 

[ronnieh]

LJS, are you seriously asking why aircraft have to be built lite? Archaic, well because the basic model, wing in front of the conventional tail seems to work well. There have been a few look at the canard, and the V tail but it has not caught on and some would argue that the V tail did nothing for safety. It is very expensive to get certification for radical new designs. Seems like a poor business model to spend $25 million in R&D in the hope of selling 50 aircraft at $500,000 each over a period of 3 years. Do the math.
General aviation (small SE, piston) is a niche market. The vast majority of owners (not all) struggle with the cost as it is and never even try to justify it. Flying has always been expensive. If flying were cheap, I would own a couple (just not single engine).

 

[Ted]

My biggest concern is, are these gonna have some TCDS restriction on TBO's? They like to sneak stuff like that into new designs....

Beats me, but my suspicion is probably not unless they truly have a life limited component.

not necessarily. But where it does take a hit is altitude restart unless you make some performance compromises with the blower.

I'll defer to your expertise on efficiency, I just saw the DeltaHawk published fuel numbers and they show an improvement vs a Lycoming but worse than the Thielert/Austro for the same power. I'd guess their technology isn't as sophisticated as some of the items you deal with in your job.

 

[flyingmoose]

The problem lies in some other areas, though - For example, we use oleo strut seals made of really old (read: obsolete) blends of rubber that easily dry out, crack, and have to be replaced every year instead of newer rubbers that would last much longer. So, we spend $250 every single year getting our struts rebuilt. That's only one example, but they all add up, and eventually what happens is that there's no money left for actually flying and staying proficient, and pilots get into accidents because they haven't been flying enough 'cuz they spent last month's flying budget getting struts rebuilt and door stops replaced.

Not to get off topic here.... And yes I know what you are trying to say..... But why are you having to change you strut seals every year??

 

[nddons]

Based on the Stanford Business School graduates that I have to deal with that have zero clue how to run a business that actually has to interact with customers, I would say yes, universities don't know **** about how to properly run a business. It's all theory and no practice. I've watched them run an industry leader into a has been. Go Cardinal!

Let me break it down for you.

It takes Johnny 100 million dollars to set up production. Johnny sells 5,000,000 cars. How much in start up costs must be put into the price of the car?

Mary spends the same 100 million in set up. She only sells 5,000 airplanes. How much in start up costs must be put into the price of the plane?

Did they teach you that ? Evidently not. Ask for a refund.

I'm guessing Cessna's start up costs and tooling for the 172 are probably fully amortized. What does a new Skyhawk go for - $325,000? What has changed since airplanes used to be relatively affordable?

But start up costs and other overhead costs have little to do with what you charge for a product. You typically charge what the market will bear. If your costs exceed that price, you go out of business.

Unfortunately, they market doesn't seem to be bearing the cost of new production aircraft very well. Which I think is part of AP's point.

I'm surprised at the number of people who appear to be totally comfortable with the status quo of the FAA's role in the cost of aircraft and part certification, and are beating up on AP for asking if there is a better way of doing things.

Our hobby is dying a slow death, folks, and costs are a primary reason for it. I'd think we should all be in this fight together.

 

[docmirror]

Well, it's nice if you can maintain the plane yourself - Not everyone can. And it doesn't sound like anything is wrong based on your description... Here's the tab from the latest one this month (the 2nd one this year!):

Nose Strut Seal Kit $15.38
2 pints hydraulic fluid $9.78
2.5 hours of labor $185.00
Consumables $9.25
Sales Tax $1.89
Total: $221.30

I think you have something else wrong. The hyd gear struts on most GA planes are designed to last for lots of years and cycles. I think you may have a worn guide bushing which allows the strut to move around in the housing. Extra investigation might be useful. The strut seals should last a long time. I had to replace the lower bronze bushing in my Bonanza after a number of years because it was worn enough to allow the strut shaft to move too much.

 

[docmirror]

Here's my take on it. Non-avionics upgrades should be tested well. I know that some changes can be made without all the cost involved, but we also don't want to throw the doors open or we'll get Chinese auto parts all over again.

As far as avionics I don't think there are many issue with non-panel installed units. Everything that can be added or featured as long as there's a market. For the in-panel stuff, well - I've seen what happens when things aren't well validated before shipping. Anyone who was involved in the beta for Win-95 knows exactly what I'm talkin bout.

 

[JHW]

I'll defer to your expertise on efficiency, I just saw the DeltaHawk published fuel numbers and they show an improvement vs a Lycoming but worse than the Thielert/Austro for the same power. I'd guess their technology isn't as sophisticated as some of the items you deal with in your job.

Just speculation, but I suspect they've had to screw up the fuel efficiency somewhat with less-than-optimal charge air handling to try and improve altitude restart.

 

[Ted]

Not to get off topic here.... And yes I know what you are trying to say..... But why are you having to change you strut seals every year??

That was my thought, too. Unfortunately I see a lot of this - people doing a $250 repair every year instead of a $1,000 repair that will last 20 years.

I typically go for the more expensive repair now, and have had very reliable planes (and lower maintenance bills overall) as a result.

 

[JHW]

That was my thought, too. Unfortunately I see a lot of this - people doing a $250 repair every year instead of a $1,000 repair that will last 20 years.

I typically go for the more expensive repair now, and have had very reliable planes (and lower maintenance bills overall) as a result.

struts are often the other extreme. People can't wait to throw a few hundred $$ at it when a teaspoonful of ATF stop leak will swell those seals up nicely. Especially if you've had it apart the last year and know the chrome is good, give the rings a chance to work before ripping it apart again.

 

[LJS1993]

LJS, are you seriously asking why aircraft have to be built lite? Archaic, well because the basic model, wing in front of the conventional tail seems to work well. There have been a few look at the canard, and the V tail but it has not caught on and some would argue that the V tail did nothing for safety. It is very expensive to get certification for radical new designs. Seems like a poor business model to spend $25 million in R&D in the hope of selling 50 aircraft at $500,000 each over a period of 3 years. Do the math.
General aviation (small SE, piston) is a niche market. The vast majority of owners (not all) struggle with the cost as it is and never even try to justify it. Flying has always been expensive. If flying were cheap, I would own a couple (just not single engine).

I understand the weight issue Ronnie. Let me say this overall. I think it's totally b.s. that general aviation hasn't been made more reasonable both technologically and economically for a broader range of individuals. A long time ago on this forum the whole "reviving general aviation" topic came up and cost was a big issue along with technology. Many pilots on this forum at that time had a major issue with aircraft made in the 60's/70's being the most reasonable way to own an aircraft. Is 1960's-70's technology really the best way to keep general aviation going?

 

[JHW]

Is 1960's-70's technology really the best way to keep general aviation going?

No, it isn't. Those planes are fat pigs and some of them were certified under part 23 which carries baggage. Outside of experimentals, the preferred planes are CAR-3 models from the 1950's, that's what I have.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

No, it isn't. Those planes are fat pigs and some of them were certified under part 23 which carries baggage. Outside of experimentals, the preferred planes are CAR-3 models from the 1950's, that's what I have.

Can you explain further about the differences between part 23 and CAR 3?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

That was my thought, too. Unfortunately I see a lot of this - people doing a $250 repair every year instead of a $1,000 repair that will last 20 years.

I typically go for the more expensive repair now, and have had very reliable planes (and lower maintenance bills overall) as a result.

We've had the struts completely rebuilt, too - Didn't help.

struts are often the other extreme. People can't wait to throw a few hundred $$ at it when a teaspoonful of ATF stop leak will swell those seals up nicely. Especially if you've had it apart the last year and know the chrome is good, give the rings a chance to work before ripping it apart again.

Is a teaspoonful of ATF stop leak an FAA-approved repair technique?

 

[wabower]

What would you have done differently as an aircraft manufacturer?

?

I understand the weight issue Ronnie. Let me say this overall. I think it's totally b.s. that general aviation hasn't been made more reasonable both technologically and economically for a broader range of individuals. A long time ago on this forum the whole "reviving general aviation" topic came up and cost was a big issue along with technology. Many pilots on this forum at that time had a major issue with aircraft made in the 60's/70's being the most reasonable way to own an aircraft. Is 1960's-70's technology really the best way to keep general aviation going?

 

[LJS1993]

What would you have done differently as an aircraft manufacturer?

?

Wayne it's not about "having" done differently as I'm sure that technology was state of the art in its time. I'm talking about now and the aircraft being produced today. There has to be a company that is producing brand new aircraft that are more modern, efficient, yet very affordable for all pilots. Am I truly demanding too much?

 

[Everskyward]

Wayne it's not about "having" done differently as I'm sure that technology was state of the art in its time. I'm talking about now and the aircraft being produced today. There has to be a company that is producing brand new aircraft that are more modern, efficient, yet very affordable for all pilots. Am I truly demanding too much?

What price would you consider "affordable" in a new aircraft, say a C-182 or equivalent?

 

[us AAirways]

And everyone thought the new Cessnas were overpriced back in 1997. They look like a bargain compared to today.

http://www.avweb.com/news/reviews/182570-1.html

 

[bluerooster]

What price would you consider "affordable" in a new aircraft, say a C-182 or equivalent?

I would give about $50k for a brand spankin' new C-182, with steam gauges, SL-30, and GNS430W.

For a G1000, I'd give $60k

Or I'll continue to fly older airplanes.
Actually, I'd prefer a 1956-59 182, Fewer ADs, Carry more, Stand taller, and look better.

 

[bluerooster]

As to the NASCAR rated seatbelts in post #2, If they're allowed, I'd get them. They're way less expensive.

 

[LJS1993]

What price would you consider "affordable" in a new aircraft, say a C-182 or equivalent?

Let's say something around the price of $75,000 with C-172 capabilities. Is it really costing Textron that much to make brand new 172's?

 

[LJS1993]

I would give about $50k for a brand spankin' new C-182, with steam gauges, SL-30, and GNS430W.

For a G1000, I'd give $60k

Or I'll continue to fly older airplanes.
Actually, I'd prefer a 1956-59 182, Fewer ADs, Carry more, Stand taller, and look better.

Yes Shorty!!!!!!!! Are we asking for too much?

 

[JohnAJohnson]

It is not dying because it is 'unsafe'. It is dying because it is expensive.

Lots of people with mega bucks don't own their own plane or fly. It isn't because it's expensive, it's because GA is impractical for 99% of us.

And that makes it expensive for the 1% who find it practical, or fun/interesting enough to overcome the impracticality.

 

[Everskyward]

Let's say something around the price of $75,000 with C-172 capabilities. Is it really costing Textron that much to make brand new 172's?

I don't have any idea how much it costs to make them but it looks like Cessna is selling them starting at $289,500. However, they are in business to make money so it seems to me that they would sell them at the highest price possible, as long as people buy them, rather than the lowest price.

http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/skyhawk

I have no idea what the sweet spot in pricing would be for Cessna but their list price is as much as many people pay for a house, and this is for something that is basically a toy.

I think that Brian had it mostly right when he said that there are few people who love it enough to justify the cost. But I think the cost comes not only in $$$ but in time and effort. People with plenty of money and some interest are still reluctant, maybe because they have other things they would rather do with their time and money. I've also had people who I know could afford it tell me that they didn't have the time to invest in order to do it right. This self-awareness is probably a good thing.

 

[JohnAJohnson]

The Peltzman Effect...

I've always believed that if you remove all the safety devices on all cars (bumpers, airbags, seat belts, crush zones, etc.), and instead installed a sharp spike sticking out of the steering wheel hub a few inches from the drivers chest, you'd have infinitely safer highways.

 

[N801BH]

As to the NASCAR rated seatbelts in post #2, If they're allowed, I'd get them. They're way less expensive.

Most of the time it is NOT the seatbelts that fail.....

It is the anchor points..... and that will take the FAA's blessing to alter those..