Guest Editorial: The Death of General Aviation?

The experimental fleet is finally a significant portion of the GA population. We'll see if such issues start cropping up with any frequency.
 
dmccormack said:
Right, but back to David's suggestion -- we have system where one corrective agent (Lawsuits) can have plenty of "regulatory" affect already.
Click to expand...
But like David also said, lawsuits usually happen at the back end, as the result of an accident. I think it's necessary to have standards at the front end too.
 
Everskyward said:
But like David also said, lawsuits usually happen at the back end, as the result of an accident. I think it's necessary to have standards at the front end too.
Click to expand...

"Standards" are one thing -- we have "Certification," which another kettle o' fish.

We have crash standards and MPG standards in autos. But there is no "certification." Therefore if I want to drill some holes and drop in a totally rad woofer and drive it with a 600w amp, I can. :thumbsup:

But if I want to add some fluid to my Chief's compass, I have to find a certified avionics technician and he has to do the work -- I dare not.
 
Everskyward said:
Some people may be comfortable with the idea that you should be able to get parts for your airplane from anywhere and install them. I'm sure that some people would do a great job and go to a lot of trouble researching which parts are best. Then there would be the ones who would be into into, "let's try this!"
Click to expand...

We already have that situation in the experimental world. Most builders are conscientous and either buy aviation parts or properly test their fabricated or automotive parts.
Particularly in the world of automotive conversion engines, there are frequent mechanical failures, often due to parts that are not able to perform under the particular stresses of aviation use.
 
dmccormack said:
But if I want to add some fluid to my Chief's compass, I have to find a certified avionics technician and he has to do the work -- I dare not.
Click to expand...
In this case I would say that's probably a function that could be added to the things that owners can do to their airplanes rather than tossing out the whole certification process.
 
Everskyward said:
In this case I would say that's probably a function that could be added to the things that owners can do to their airplanes rather than tossing out the whole certification process.
Click to expand...

Well, imagine this scenario: the Compass meets the standard requirements for accuracy (as measured by a compass swing)

If so -- who cares who re-filled the fluid? :dunno:
 
Two comments.

1. Light sport is not cheap. It seems to me that most of the light sport pilots are pilots who know that they can't get another medical, so they drop down to light sport. I don't even know where someone can get light sport training around here. It isn't like you can wander into any old airport and find an instructor and a light sport airplane to learn in. You have to look hard to find them.

2. There is no shortage of A&Ps who will do just about anything you want them to do to your plane, as long as you pay the bill, and no shortage of IAs who will sell their signature. And you do not have to look that hard to find one of those.
 
Recreational flying is just too expensive, for whatever reason. It always has been. For a lot of people it comes down to flying, or paying the bills. There are some people who will do whatever it takes to be in the air. Most people however are not that addicted to flying. Those people either don't start, or quit. If it were more affordable you would see more people doing it.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
GM makes more money from financing than it does from actually selling cars.
Click to expand...

I was trying to resist, but I have to say it... GM didn't make money... they lost money until the government bailed them out, and then lied about having paid it back by cooking the books with the assistance of government.

The investors in the original GM were the "recipients" of the proverbial shaft, and the government even made sure the bondholders got pennies on the dollar so the government loans could be paid back. If the bondholders had received their appropriate investments back, the government loans would still be outstanding, and the company wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell to pay them back, ever.

The company should have been sold off for its valuable parts and the bondholders made whole, if the rules of the game we all agreed to play by, were followed.

But it's all funny-money. Who cares, right? Maybe we can all get a deal where each of us is "too big to fail".

Ford might have been a better example, Kent. ;)
 
weilke said:
We already have that situation in the experimental world. Most builders are conscientous and either buy aviation parts or properly test their fabricated or automotive parts.
Particularly in the world of automotive conversion engines, there are frequent mechanical failures, often due to parts that are not able to perform under the particular stresses of aviation use.
Click to expand...

That's because we're all not quite as stupid as the FAA thinks we are... our butts are in the seat that will go down in flames if we use poor quality parts or workmanship. If you're truly dumb enough to use low-grade parts on an Experimental, you die. Darwin Award given posthumously.
 
Last edited:
dmccormack said:
Well, imagine this scenario: the Compass meets the standard requirements for accuracy (as measured by a compass swing)

If so -- who cares who re-filled the fluid? :dunno:
Click to expand...
Didn't I just write, "That's probably a function that could be added to the things that owners can do to their airplanes rather than tossing out the whole certification process"?
 
Everskyward said:
Didn't I just write, "That's probably a function that could be added to the things that owners can do to their airplanes rather than tossing out the whole certification process"?
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting standards over certification, with litigation for shoddy materials and workmanship the ultimate hammer.
 
PilotAlan said:
I would agree with that, IF and only IF, the federal certification process immunized the manufacturer for design issues.
What we have now is the worst of both worlds, where the manufacturer must bear the staggering cost of certification, and so it how the FAA wants it, and THEN is facing with the shark pool of trial lawyers coming after them.

Either remove certification and let the lawyers sort it out, or remove the lawyers and let the FAA sort it out. But both at the same time is stupid.
Click to expand...

This is spot-on. Arguably, we are paying a fortune for "certification" and getting little for it. As a long time boater and an aspiring pilot, I am shocked at how a "G1000" is treated and priced like it is an time machine when I can buy the nearly identical electronics for my boat at a marine store for $4K. A boat stuff is also very expensive! Somewhere along the way, something has gone very, very wrong.
 
denverpilot said:
I was trying to resist, but I have to say it... GM didn't make money... they lost money until the government bailed them out, and then lied about having paid it back by cooking the books with the assistance of government.
Click to expand...

Okay. "Prior to a certain date in the past, GM made more money from financing than from selling cars."

Ford might have been a better example, Kent. ;)
Click to expand...

I would assume that Ford makes more money from financing than from selling cars, too, but I don't know. GMAC Finance, I do know, made more than the car-selling arm of GM. Or lost less. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top