Golden Age of GA

[Llewtrah381]

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.

To beat a dead horse, for instance, by slow-playing approvals and restricting innovation, far fewer new engine or airframes have been allowed to enter the market, thus restricting supply, thus driving up cost. I don't think anyone would really argue that there wouldn't be far more production of aircraft and engines if it weren't for the FAA. "But new engines and aircraft cost so much" you might say, "so even if more were produced, no one would buy them!". Yes, but why do they cost so much? Because they are so difficult to approve (for one), and because there is such restricted competition that would otherwise put downward pressure on price (for the same reason!). FWIW, I'm not exactly a free-market absolutist and happily take the position that a certain amount of this kind of restriction (e.g. "good" regulation) supports the health of a marketplace by contributing to safety and fair-dealing. But the FAA's approach has effectively strangled the market entirely, killing it.

I would say the GA Revitalization Act of ‘94 was actually a very good move by the government to try to control the non-governmental and absolutely dominating issue of liability. I think (we all would agree that) it would be very, very helpful for the litigation issue to be based on common sense. Until then, I see that as one of the key barriers to entry for people wanting to come up with novel solutions of all kinds.

Then again, even if liability was completely off the table, I think there are other, even non-economic factors keeping interest down. I don’t see a lot of racketball courts these days and there are very few impediments to those. Interests shift over time - and very quickly in our present time, I’d say.

 

[Bob Noel]

Uncle Sam pulled the plug on the subsidies.

At the time, there was a generous GI bill that paid for flight traing at any flight school not just the career puppy mills. Tax breaks for leasebacks abounded.Then came Ronnie Reagan and it all went away.

You might want to check your facts wrt what congress critter made the GI Bill changes circa 1984. And it's my understanding that flight training subsidies are still available.

 

[Half Fast]

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.

Well, SP and experimentals enabled all that for VFR. I don't think it moved the needle much.

 

[Bell206]

Maybe I’m misunderstanding your wuestion.

No. All of the above is EAA. And while the Work Instruction is an FAA exemption process, it does not provide what EAA has been stating or implying for VARMA. There is nothing in the VARMA Work Instruction that I cannot perform now as an A&P. VARMA’s claim to fame was it would provide an approval path to more replacement parts on vintage aircraft the key part being “replacement part.” However, I think the work instruction sums up that up with its note at the end of section 4 that it was mostly lip service in the end.

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

I don’t know where you got your info from, but you may want to review it again as some of your points are off a bit.

Rewrite Part 23? They did that in 2017 and removed 1000+ regulations replacing them with consensus standards found in several ACs.

Field approvals? There was a policy change in 2002 that redefined how field approvals are performed due to a couple “remote” FSDOs thought they could write their own rules.

Certify new aircraft? Off the top of my head, they recently certified 2 airplanes and 1 helicopter and a new engine for one of the airplanes. They are also currently certifying and developing new regulations for the next generation aircraft. If an OEM brings the FAA an aircraft they will certify it.

As to the FAA itself, I’ve dealt with them at many levels and across many tasks and never was “disgusted” with them as you state. Were there some deekheads? Sure, but show me one entity that doesn’t have them.

Regardless, what I think most people are unaware of, or possibly have forgotten, is that the FAA along with NASA and the industry spent millions in an attempt to expand general aviation for the masses by developing new technology, equipment, materials, processes and aircraft. Yet when the AGATE program ended around 2000, few of the masses bought into it, so everyone packed up, to include the FAA, and moved on to other ventures and developments. So to blame the FAA about the state of recreational aviation today is a bit of a stretch. If that were really true, why is the rest of GA continuing to expand with new aircraft and opportunities?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Uncle Sam pulled the plug on the subsidies.

At the time, there was a generous GI bill that paid for flight traing at any flight school not just the career puppy mills. Tax breaks for leasebacks abounded.Then came Ronnie Reagan and it all went away.

To receive GI Bill benefits the flight school had to be 141 and approved by the VA, and the applicant had to have at least a private pilot certificate.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

To receive GI Bill benefits the flight school had to be 141 and approved by the VA, and the applicant had to have at least a private pilot certificate.

Go back further. The World War Two GI Bill flight training benefit had been a boon for our industry. About 35,000 airplanes were cranked out in 1947 to support that activity. The Feds couldn't keep up certifying all the new pilots being cranked out. That pretty much continued through the Korean GI bill, then started to taper off until it was prettymuch gutted by the Montgomery bill and beyond.

Then came the changes to investment tax credits.

 

[Rockymountain]

Look at this gem. Looks new with first run engine. 1450 hours. Had a friend of mine that I took for an intro flight that got the bug for flying. He bought and flew one of these for less all in than a luxury SUV. Complained to me once about how expensive insurance and annuals were. I just smiled, politely. Both iirc were under 2000 per year. ;-) You can fly inexpensively, if you want to. TO be fair, if 129K for a plane seems expensive, then probably flying is not the hobby for you. But neither is owning a new wake boat, or a luxury sedan/SUV. Nothing wrong with that either.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Looks new with first run engine.

But it isn't new.

 

[TCABM]

Look at this gem. Looks new with first run engine. 1450 hours...

Based on the Controller and TAP ads, it suggests 50SMOH by Carter, not first run, which is a great selling point because that plane at $129K with a runout engine is not a value. The 180 is perceived by some as being underpowered and this one, while filled with a budget glass upgrade (2x AV-30s, EI CGRs, etc.,) may actually need ADS-B since it’s not mentioned anywhere in either of the ads.

I *might* have actually considered it, but for my mission, ADS-B and autopilot are requirements so it’s a hard no from me.

Looking further, the logbook photo shows a bunch of work done in 2006 and also references the engined was majored by Carter at 450.7hrs and a prop OH in that 2006 entry. Interesting history and a thorough logbook review would be in order. Current registrant purchased in last summer and doesn’t appear in the Airman Registry or database, but that’s not definitive.

For the educated buyer, there’s more to the story that needs to be learned.

 

[AA5Bman]

Rewrite Part 23? They did that in 2017 and removed 1000+ regulations replacing them with consensus standards found in several ACs.

Field approvals? There was a policy change in 2002 that redefined how field approvals are performed due to a couple “remote” FSDOs thought they could write their own rules.

To clarify, I wasn't referring to the re-write, I was referring to the original introduction of Part 23, which was instituted in the 60s and was far more restrictive than the CAR 3 regs it replaced. You're kind of proving my point - it took, what, until 2017 to rewrite it? 50 some-odd years? (Fwiw, I don't know this particular history, maybe they reformed it before but it's not really the point). Also, unfortunately, I've had to become an expert in field approvals and trust me... the FAA does basically whatever they want to on that front, regulation or no regulation. And just because one office says you can do something doesn't mean another office won't turn right around and undo it after you've spent a ton of money doing the thing, which is kind of the point - they don't need regulation to squash you and you can't even rely on the regulation they do have. This, again, might change/improve post-Chevron, but we'll see.

 

[Dana]

TO be fair, if 129K for a plane seems expensive, then probably flying is not the hobby for you.

It depends on what you want from flying. $129K is expensive for me, but I've owned seven planes over the years, and none of them cost even 20% of what that one cost.

 

[Bell206]

You're kind of proving my point - it took, what, until 2017 to rewrite it? 50 some-odd years?

Not really. The main reason there was a switch to the FARs was to remain in sync with ICAO and other aviation agreements. The US was a bit slow to keep up considering about 80% of the FARs do service those agreements. But keep in mind certain FARs go through a regular review to ensure they still provide a valid function. Shortly after the AGATE program ended, a Certification Process Study was done on Part 23 in part due to all the new technologies, materials, and processes used during the program. The 2017 Part 23 rewrite was the end result to streamline those new items. But again, just like after AGATE only few have taken advantage of the new rules. So instead of pointing at the FAA, you really need to be questioning the aircraft OEMs why they’re only spending money on non-recreational aircraft development and certifying them under the new Part 23.

Also, unfortunately, I've had to become an expert in field approvals and trust me... the FAA does basically whatever they want to on that front, regulation or no regulation.

What specific steps from Order 8300.16 are your ASIs not following? The 2002 field approval policy change required all ASIs to follow a specific process due to issues that caused the change. However, that policy also provided an ASI an option to defer a FA to the ACO which some ASIs seem to default to regardless of the alteration or repair. But it is a defined process and tracked. So while I’ve had pushback on some FA over the years, it never made me have the same outlook you present. And once Block 3 was signed I never had another ASI question it. So unless your ASI isn’t following 8300.16 or not using the Job Aid don’t quite follow where the problem could be.

 

[Pinecone]

I think a big thing is just the ridiculous expensiveness for aviation,especially certified aircraft.30k to overhaul an incredibly simple 6 cylinder engine,7k for an aluminum 2 bladed fixed pitch prop,etc,etc.
I get it that aviation parts are engineered and maintained to higher standard then most but there seems to be a lot of “just because we can” pricing.End of rant

Except that EVERYTHING is expensive. Gone out to dinner recently. Heck, bought a meal at a fast food place?

 

[TCABM]

The only cheap thing about an airplane is the owner.

 

[AA5Bman]

What specific steps from Order 8300.16 are your ASIs not following? The 2002 field approval policy change required all ASIs to follow a specific process due to issues that caused the change. However, that policy also provided an ASI an option to defer a FA to the ACO which some ASIs seem to default to regardless of the alteration or repair. But it is a defined process and tracked. So while I’ve had pushback on some FA over the years, it never made me have the same outlook you present. And once Block 3 was signed I never had another ASI question it. So unless your ASI isn’t following 8300.16 or not using the Job Aid don’t quite follow where the problem could be.

Oh man, you’re starting to speak my language. I can’t get into it, but trust me when I say there are multiple ways to get data approval as per 8300.16A and not every FSDO will respect those alternative methods even though they are written down clear as day.