How does Rotax do it?

GRG55 said:
I wonder if the repeated comparisons I see on this forum between autos and aircraft are all that valid.

The FAA has been remarkably lenient over time, compared to what the auto industry has been subjected to. The ADS-B mandate, which raised so many howls of protest, is small beans compared to what has been mandated over the decades for the auto industry. Which of the two has really been the greater subject of a "communist economic pathology"?
Click to expand...

Yet all other industries are thriving ( auto , boats, you name it ) and the certified GA industry is basically dying with hardly anything new happening ... I guess we have reached the pinnacle of development somewhere back in the 60-70s and guess that's it - you can't improve on perfection.
 
455 Bravo Uniform said:
I’ve heard of only 2 engine-outs (complete shutdowns) on planes based at my field since I’ve hangared here (2 years). One was a new diesel 172 and the other was a Rotax powered experimental. Both landed out safely in farm fields.

The few other engine problems that I know about have all been Conti/Lyco problems (running but making crap power, or before TBO tear downs). No dead-sticks.

There is only one diesel that I know about on the field, and a couple experimentals (not sure of power plants), with the rest Conti/Lyco.

Data points, no conclusions.
Click to expand...


Here is a real data link... I posted it a while ago but why not ..

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107_research/

According to that study , Rotax , Lycoming and Continental have essentially the same failure rates.
 
Warmi said:
According to that study , Rotax , Lycoming and Continental have essentially the same failure rates
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that!

So basically 1 in 36 Rotax and 1 in 35 Lyco/Conti... and this is given that the Rotax are generally powering a different "type" of flying than the dude spending 90% of his time flying at 2,300 RPM, 22 inches manifold, and humming along at 6,500. Most of the Rotax plants I see are on Kitfox, etc., that live a harder life

YET, the Rotax, with a near identical failure rate (probably better if operated for the same type of flying as Lyco/Conti) has a fraction of the displacement and single lever push button controls, is lighter, and generally a little better on fuel consumption (from what I've anecdotally seen)

Please continue to tell me how a 1940s designed powerplant hand built in sand cast molds with huge tolerances is the pinnacle in reliability and aviation tech


**Incidentally, I thought it was interesting in the link posted above that Contis and Lycos are equal. The rumor is that Continentals are less reliable, but that seems to be untrue.

PS, 1 in 35 and 1 in 36 are both miserable stats in general. You don't see automobiles with a 1/36 failure rate
 
Since cars keep coming up, because it's a relatively easy comparison to make, especially given the massive gulf in the tech and the standstill in GA vs the tech advancement in autos.. here's a few things to consider since people seem to cherry pick operating standards.. "yeah well planes sit at 75% power their whole life and cars at 20%" - in addition to what I've already talked about with the pathetic displacement differences, consider this:

-we start our aircraft engines carefully with a checklist. We wait for the oil to warm up, we tinker with the mixture, we do a run up, we monitor CHT EGT and all other parameters, we make sure plugs aren't fowled, we change oil every 25-100 hrs, we analyze it, we don't start our engines if it's cold, we don't hammer the throttle... these engines are treated extremely gingerly, and even at their "WOAH 75% POWER" that's usually somewhere at 2,500 rpm or lower

-NOW, take your average beater car, say a 1999 Toyota Camry with 200,000 miles on it driven by a waitress (not sexist intent, rather, someone who doesn't care about cars at all stereotype), who lives in upstate Vermont. This car probably has not had an oil change or service since 2003.. yet here we are with a 180 hp 2.2 liter engine, our waitress is going to get in the car on a cold VT morning when it's -20*F out, she'll start it, and immediately rev the thing to 4,000 RPM to help it "warm up"... then she'll be hammering the throttle to get it unstuck from the snowdrift and ice, drive it to work 6 miles, so the engine never properly gets warm, and shuts it off again. This will happen almost every day November through April. Then May through September it will be hot as balls, AC will be on full tilt, and the car will generally be viciously abused it's whole miserable life. Mind you, at an average of 30 mph driving speed that 200,000 miles translates to about **6,500 hours** on that engine. At some point she'll have car trouble that will probably be an alternator, water pump, or serpentine belt.. but she won't see a catastrophic valve or other failure

I feel like the one person in the allegory of the cave who wants to go outside while everyone is happy with the absolute trash and garbage that we're offered in GA for powerplants
 
weilke said:
Engineering, testing and skillfully working the regulatory aspects. That's how they do 'it'




A 250hp Rotax would be a game changer.
Click to expand...

I have a pair of 250 hp Lycomings on my Aztec. What exactly would be the benefit of installing Rotax equivalents?
 
Depends. If the life of the Rotax is better or replacement cost is lower. Also, if FADEC and/or turbos are involved (likely for a Rotax), it simplifies operation and runs at full power up to the low teens. Tough to debate an engine that doesn’t exist though.
 
Warmi said:
Yet all other industries are thriving ( auto , boats, you name it ) and the certified GA industry is basically dying with hardly anything new happening ... I guess we have reached the pinnacle of development somewhere back in the 60-70s and guess that's it - you can't improve on perfection.
Click to expand...

This post sounds like the sort of nonsensical statements expected on Twitter.

Recreational GA has been in a secular decline for more than three decades. In that time there's been lots of "new happenings". Spend a bit of time in the right places at OSH and you will have seen that. But the inexorable march of demographics, the flatlining of real, inflation adjusted incomes during that same multi-decade period, and a host of other factors that have nothing to do with "hardly anything new happening" are in play. Even if an electric powered, multi-rotor, computer flown personal aircraft was a commercial reality today, I see no evidence it would change the secular trend.

As for autos, thriving? Really?

USA automobile sales 1980 - May 2019. Looks like we barely got back to the same place sales peaked 35 years ago, and then again around the turn of the century. Where do you think it heads next on the chart? The largest manufacturers are announcing plant closings.
Oh yes, I forgot. Soon, we're all going to be transported in autopilot Teslas (look Ma, no hands!), so who cares. :rolleyes:

upload_2019-6-22_13-31-53.png
 
weilke said:
They would be better.
Click to expand...

In what way? It is unlikely efficiency is any better.

Durability, maybe. I doubt it is really known how much maintenance is required to get a Lycoming to TBO vs. a comparable Rotax. My guess is the rotax would be cheaper but it is unknown.
 
Warmi said:
Here is a real data link... I posted it a while ago but why not ..

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2013/ar-2013-107_research/

According to that study , Rotax , Lycoming and Continental have essentially the same failure rates.
Click to expand...

In my small sample size (local field population and 2 years), 100% Diesel stoppage (1 of 1) and 50% Rotax stoppage (1 of 2), with 0% for the old 1940s stuff (roughly 50-75 planes?).

Not scientific or statistical, but like all things in marketing and sales, people are people and stats and science only go so far. No different at POA.
 
Tantalum said:
Since cars keep coming up, because it's a relatively easy comparison to make, especially given the massive gulf in the tech and the standstill in GA vs the tech advancement in autos.. here's a few things to consider since people seem to cherry pick operating standards.. "yeah well planes sit at 75% power their whole life and cars at 20%" - in addition to what I've already talked about with the pathetic displacement differences, consider this:

-we start our aircraft engines carefully with a checklist. We wait for the oil to warm up, we tinker with the mixture, we do a run up, we monitor CHT EGT and all other parameters, we make sure plugs aren't fowled, we change oil every 25-100 hrs, we analyze it, we don't start our engines if it's cold, we don't hammer the throttle... these engines are treated extremely gingerly, and even at their "WOAH 75% POWER" that's usually somewhere at 2,500 rpm or lower

-NOW, take your average beater car, say a 1999 Toyota Camry with 200,000 miles on it driven by a waitress (not sexist intent, rather, someone who doesn't care about cars at all stereotype), who lives in upstate Vermont. This car probably has not had an oil change or service since 2003.. yet here we are with a 180 hp 2.2 liter engine, our waitress is going to get in the car on a cold VT morning when it's -20*F out, she'll start it, and immediately rev the thing to 4,000 RPM to help it "warm up"... then she'll be hammering the throttle to get it unstuck from the snowdrift and ice, drive it to work 6 miles, so the engine never properly gets warm, and shuts it off again. This will happen almost every day November through April. Then May through September it will be hot as balls, AC will be on full tilt, and the car will generally be viciously abused it's whole miserable life. Mind you, at an average of 30 mph driving speed that 200,000 miles translates to about **6,500 hours** on that engine. At some point she'll have car trouble that will probably be an alternator, water pump, or serpentine belt.. but she won't see a catastrophic valve or other failure

I feel like the one person in the allegory of the cave who wants to go outside while everyone is happy with the absolute trash and garbage that we're offered in GA for powerplants
Click to expand...
Rant on brother!

Not sure what good it will do though.
 
mondtster said:
Only if provisions were made to install them on airframes that were originally certified with something else on them. In other words, an STC.

Lycoming had the modernized IE2 engine that went nowhere because no airframers were interested and there were no STCs for them.
Click to expand...

IMO the IE2 engine either just wasn’t much of an improvement or Lycoming just did a terrible job marketing it.
Basically it offered significant additional cost with no other tangible benefit other than simpler operation, which every pilot to date doesn’t think they need. If Lycoming had offered to significantly extend the warranty for the IE2 engine, basically saying that they thought engines with this option would significantly out last the traditional engine I think there would have been a lot more interest in it.
 
Ryanb said:
From a reliability standpoint, it seems as though Rotax have mixed reports.
Click to expand...

Nowadays, they're quite reliable. They had some problems in the early days, but Rotax said some of that was caused by improper installation. I saw a detailed post on one of the LSA forums about that the other day. Something about Pipistrel (! - which surprised me) failing to ground the FADEC models properly in a composite plane during installation, which caused false readings.

Dan Johnson -- OK, hardly an unbiased source -- recently interviewed a flight school with an all-Rotax fleet and they love them. They're making it to TBO.
 
Tantalum said:
I feel like the one person in the allegory of the cave who wants to go outside while everyone is happy with the absolute trash and garbage that we're offered in GA for powerplants
Click to expand...

It's not just you. :)

The fact that Rotax makes many different engines for recreational vehicles keeps coming up. Yep, and in the early days, Continental and Lycoming made engines for lots of different things. Plus, a lot of their R&D was subsidized by the military for WWII. They even made engines for tanks. But after WWII, when everyone was buying surplus DC-3s and other aircraft, and then jets came along, piston power kind of became stagnant.

Rotax, to their credit, decided to develop an engine series for small GA planes. My hat is off to them.
 
Stephen Poole said:
... and now you're back to the regulatory aspect. The FAA is not helping matters in GA.
Click to expand...

Some of the requirements may be a bit cumbersome but much of what is required for the certification process should be done whether the FAA required it or not. There is far more to an engine change than just hanging it on and plumbing it.
 
brcase said:
IMO the IE2 engine either just wasn’t much of an improvement or Lycoming just did a terrible job marketing it.
Basically it offered significant additional cost with no other tangible benefit other than simpler operation, which every pilot to date doesn’t think they need. If Lycoming had offered to significantly extend the warranty for the IE2 engine, basically saying that they thought engines with this option would significantly out last the traditional engine I think there would have been a lot more interest in it.
Click to expand...

If “every pilot doesn’t think they need it” then why do we have threads like this every six months?

Fact is, pilots/owners are cheap and won’t pay for the added expense and complexity. Then they’ll sit there and whine about aviation being in the dark ages.
 
mondtster said:
Some of the requirements may be a bit cumbersome but much of what is required for the certification process should be done whether the FAA required it or not. There is far more to an engine change than just hanging it on and plumbing it.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that if it's a certificated aircraft, you are strictly limited in what engines could be installed. The FAA could easily make it so that you could install the engine of your choice, provided you follow a procedure similar to what experimental builders have to follow before the plane is (re)declared airworthy. For smaller planes (C150, et. al.), imagine being able to sub in a Rotax, saving 100 lbs of useful load, and getting turbo to boot. Yes, you'd have to consider the weight and balance, but if done right, it'd be a great improvement.

But under current rules, you'd have a very difficult time doing that. I discovered that when I looked into buying a C162 Skycatcher and swapping the factory engine with a Rotax.
 
European perspective here. Small flying school with 3 Cessna 150's, A PA28 and an EV-97 Eurostar.

The PA28's engine made started making metal at 2380 hours. It was stripped and found beyond economical repair. A factory rebuilt engine was fitted (£26400) and this engine started making metal at 1200 hours. Found to be a piston plug and was repaired. Still going strong with 1800 hours on it

1st C150. Started making metal at 2180 hours. Overhauled. Needed new crank, new crankcase, new camshaft, new followers, new mag, new starter, new alternator, new carb and all 4 cylinders were replaced with new. Cost £22000. At 1150 hours it needed a new cylinder. And 1200 hours it had to be stripped due low all pressure. Main bearing found to be worn so all the bearings were replaced and the crank reground. Cost £10000

2nd C150. Engine made TBO. Overhauled and then at 1400 hours two new cylinders were needed. At 1600 hours started making metal. Engine beyond economical repair. Factory rebuilt engine fitted (£29300 - and that was just for the engine)

3rd C150. Engine overhauled at 1400 hours making metal. Then at 450 hours crankcase found to be cracked (in fact it more of a case of broken) and took a cylinder with it. Engine overhauled with new bottom end. Everything reused including the cylinders which were overhauled. The bill £16000.

One uncertified 80 HP uncertified Rotax. 1500 hour TBO. 4800 hours so far and the majority of that time run on Avgas. Its had its gearbox overhauled/replaced every 600 hours. The ignition modules were replaced at about 1500 hours more robust aftermarket versions. The rest has just been replacement of consumables but I would include carb rubbers in that. Oil wise it runs on cheap supermarket multigrade which is half the price of a monograde aeroshell and it uses between zero and a cup of oil every 50 hours. And did I mention the spark plugs only cost £2.45 compared to £48 quid for the C150.

The plan is to run this engine to 6000 hours and then replace it with a brand new factory engine. Which will cost us £17000.

The Rotax is in a different league to the Lyo’s and conti’s. It starts first time every time and it just runs. It’s never has fouled spark plugs, Its never had a sticking exhaust value and it doesn’t need the mags overhauling every 500 hours.

The industry is dying for a new training aircraft and I would love to see Piper use the 915is and relaunch the PA28-140.
 
Stephen Poole said:
It's my understanding that if it's a certificated aircraft, you are strictly limited in what engines could be installed. The FAA could easily make it so that you could install the engine of your choice, provided you follow a procedure similar to what experimental builders have to follow before the plane is (re)declared airworthy. For smaller planes (C150, et. al.), imagine being able to sub in a Rotax, saving 100 lbs of useful load, and getting turbo to boot. Yes, you'd have to consider the weight and balance, but if done right, it'd be a great improvement.

But under current rules, you'd have a very difficult time doing that. I discovered that when I looked into buying a C162 Skycatcher and swapping the factory engine with a Rotax.
Click to expand...

The experimental process is unacceptable in my opinion for anything but an experimental, where everything is an experiment.

I work in an engine development test lab. I know the kinds of things that we do to assure a good, durable engine is built and delivered to customers. The phase 1 fly off time on experimentals does nothing to really assure longevity and proper operation.

How many of the experimental guys are doing temperature surveys? How many are doing vibration analysis? How many are doing fuel system testing? The list goes on, and of the experimental guys I know, none do. They just go and start messing with stuff when they perceive what they did before doesn’t work. That’s no way to introduce new engines into the TC aircraft market.
 
Tantalum said:
As you guys know I'm of the opinion that one of the biggest issues with GA are the pathetic 1940's powerplants we still use. We've covered the whole car engine thing ad nauseam, and have been told on here many times that for reasons X, Y, and Z, that the current crop of Lyco and Conti are the best we'll get

-volume is too low to justify the cost of redevelopment
-FAA certification is draconian, so no FADEC, no ECU, have to use magnetos, have to play 1920s chemist with the mixture control, and do a pagan chant before each engine start
-costs are astronomical
-airplane engines "run at 75% power and thus need to be big and heavy and low RPM"

Somehow Rotax has a found a way to roll out a really badass new engine, in addition to their other bad ass engines, the 915 series, that is absolutely bonkers
-95% power rated for continuous max output
-141 hp
-turbocharged, full sea-level like power until 15,000
-a solid 100 lbs less than a comparable Lyco 360
-1.35 liters!!
-very low fuel consumption
-1,200 hr TBO
-single lever throttle, with electronic controls for fuel, prop, etc.
-two fully independent electrical control systems
-FAA certified, among other certifications

Allegedly at least one of these was swapped out in place of a Lyco-360 180hp and the owner claimed a 10 knot TAS increase as a result of turbo and other refinements

**So if Rotax can do it.. and quite successfully mind you, for a submarket within the tiny GA world, then can we *please* dispel this myth that the legacy Conti's and Lyco's are the best we can put in our planes?

Our Raptor buddy should throw that Audi motor directly in the trash and just slap two of these Rotax 915 on his creation..

https://www.flyrotax.com/produkte/detail/rotax-915-is-isc.html

Click to expand...

141 HP is great as long as you want to go slow, don’t carry much payload, and satisfied with poor climb performance.
 
mondtster said:
How many of the experimental guys are doing temperature surveys? How many are doing vibration analysis? How many are doing fuel system testing? The list goes on, and of the experimental guys I know, none do. They just go and start messing with stuff when they perceive what they did before doesn’t work. That’s no way to introduce new engines into the TC aircraft market.
Click to expand...

.. .... I'm talking about using a tested, vetted, certificated engine in a tested, vetted, certificated aircraft. USING something LIKE the experimental rules to permit engine substitution. ;) You missed my point.

Doesn't have to be Rotax. If someone finally develops a good, reasonably-priced diesel or electric that is certificated, why can't owners choose to sub that engine into a certificated plane without having to declare it "exhibition only" or something like that?

I stand by my comment: a big part of the problem is the FAA's 50's-era, anal-retentive, certification process.

Edit: case in point: electric-powered LSA for training (Google the Pipistrel Alpha Electro) aren't permitted under the FAA's current rules, and it's taking them forever to stop saying "whuuhh!" and fix this hilarious oversight.

Yeah, I keep comparing them to the old FCC, which used to be that anal-retentive. When the first solid-state transmitters appeared, the FCC had to scramble to fix the rules, which specified "plate voltage" and "plate current."

Shaking my head.
 
Last edited:
Stephen Poole said:
.. .... I'm talking about using a tested, vetted, certificated engine in a tested, vetted, certificated aircraft. USING something LIKE the experimental rules to permit engine substitution. ;) You missed my point.

Doesn't have to be Rotax. If someone finally develops a good, reasonably-priced diesel or electric that is certificated, why can't owners choose to sub that engine into a certificated plane without having to declare it "exhibition only" or something like that?

I stand by my comment: a big part of the problem is the FAA's 50's-era, anal-retentive, certification process.
Click to expand...

I’m talking the same thing. There are lots of things on the airframe side that influence the installation. The airframe, engine, and propeller all need to be tested as a unit and deemed safe. Other than OEMs and those seeking STCs for engine installations on TCd airplanes, nobody really does this kind of stuff.

What’s done in the experimental world is unacceptable for TCd applications. People expect predictable results across the board. My experience with experimental aircraft suggests that the installations and outcomes are anything but consistent. Thankfully, it usually turns out ok.

Edit: by the way, if you think the FAA regulatory environment is tough, you should try to work around some of the others. Sometimes it’s amazing anything gets done.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I keep wondering when Rotax will do a 6-cylinder version of the 9xx series.
Click to expand...

Possibly after they get the new 4 cylinder FAA Part 33 certified and Part 23 airframe OEMs start installing them and/or they become real popular STC installs. After all, Rotax six cylinder engines would be more in demand for that world than the one that their four cylinders currently dominate.
 
mondtster said:
The experimental process is unacceptable in my opinion for anything but an experimental, where everything is an experiment.

I work in an engine development test lab. I know the kinds of things that we do to assure a good, durable engine is built and delivered to customers. The phase 1 fly off time on experimentals does nothing to really assure longevity and proper operation.

How many of the experimental guys are doing temperature surveys? How many are doing vibration analysis? How many are doing fuel system testing? The list goes on, and of the experimental guys I know, none do. They just go and start messing with stuff when they perceive what they did before doesn’t work. That’s no way to introduce new engines into the TC aircraft market.
Click to expand...

Precisely why I ordered a box-stock Lycoming IO-320 for my Experimental. At my current rate of flying, it'll go another 16 years till TBO.
 
Clip4 said:
141 HP is great as long as you want to go slow, don’t carry much payload, and satisfied with poor climb performance.
Click to expand...
You do realize there are LSA offerings flying with *smaller* Rotax that have far superior performance than what our beloved Lycos give us in the legacy fleet (VL3 climbs at 1200, cruise of 165, <500 ground roll), but this was less praise for this particular engine and more that Rotax is doing what many say is impossible (lighter weight, lower displacement, gear box, full ecu single lever, etc)
 
Stephen Poole said:
I stand by my comment: a big part of the problem is the FAA's 50's-era, anal-retentive, certification process.
Click to expand...
It's bonkers, it's basically impossible to advance aviation tech without stupid amounts of money
 
Tantalum said:
It's bonkers, it's basically impossible to advance aviation tech without stupid amounts of money
Click to expand...

Exactly. You and I are on the same page, singing in harmony.

@mondtster, no doubt there are worse government agencies. If you've ever worked inside of The Beast (as my wife did, for years before she became disabled), you learn some things.

1. People are primarily promoted on how well they make their bosses look (and keep their cushy, high-paying jobs). Period. If John Q. Public is very lucky, they will make decisions that actually have some basis in reality.

1A - corollary: rocking the boat is treated as an alien invasion, complete with Star Wars-like blaster noises and screaming babies.

2. There's also a lot of nepotism and back-scratching. (I could name any number of examples of people who were promoted over those who were arguably more qualified. First-hand knowledge.)

3. Many of the people responsible for implementing the rules DO NOT UNDERSTAND THEM. At all. So, if (for example) someone has decided that the Bugsmash 100 has been TC'd with the Lycosaur 0-315B, and something comes across their desk specifying a Lycosaur O_315C (or even an O-315B1), things will screech to a halt and a chorus of muttered "wuhhs!" will be heard. No one will want to stick their neck out, so it gets bopped up to higher levels, where it will languish for an interminable amount of time.

In sum: it is much easier for the givvernment to make a List Of Rules And Procedures that these mentally-challenged people can follow, lips moving as they read (and a spec of drool dropping onto the desk).

Since it would require actual skill and intelligence to, say, approve something quickly on the basis of submitted engineering data, it instead takes three forevers and a wheelbarrow full of cash money.
 
Stephen Poole said:
Since it would require actual skill and intelligence to, say, approve something quickly on the basis of submitted engineering data, it instead takes three forevers and a wheelbarrow full of cash money.
Click to expand...

I may be mistaken but the problem as I see it isn’t so much that the government drags their feet on things once the data is submitted. The problem is spending time and money to generate that data. The government doesn’t care what it costs to generate the data they require, the manufacturer simply needs to decide if it is worth it to them to pursue the expenses involved with certification of a product. The fact that the aviation market is very small and the number of units that will be sold is minimal drives the cost per unit up to the point the manufacturers lose interest.

In part this is why the Europeans are beating us at the aviation game right now. As I understand things, it is cheaper/easier to certify a plane in Europe and then apply for a type certificate here on the basis of the European certification than it is to start from scratch with an FAA TC.

In other industries it is acceptable for a manufacturer to say that XX meets certification requirements so it’s good. That’s effectively how the light sport airplane market is too, and it’s working ok there, at least for now (there are other problems there). But it didn’t work so well in the case of Boeing with the 737, so where is the incentive to lower the standards and make things a free for all?
 
mondtster said:
I may be mistaken but the problem as I see it isn’t so much that the government drags their feet on things once the data is submitted. The problem is spending time and money to generate that data.
Click to expand...

... because the government has a list of the Data That Must Be Submitted, whether that list makes sense in the real world or not.

But it didn’t work so well in the case of Boeing with the 737, so where is the incentive to lower the standards and make things a free for all?
Click to expand...

This is not a binary solution set -- either was have airplanes that are inspected down to the adhesive properties of the paint, or we have planes falling out of the sky. Not saying that YOU are saying that, but it needs to be stressed. There is a marked lack of outside-of-the-box thinking in large government agencies, and the FAA is a poster child for this.

Crazy examples off the top of my head, not directly related to Tantalum's original post: differentiate between flying for hire and flying for pleasure. The latter should include allowing friends to pay more than half the cost on a pleasure cruise. It should also grant considerable leeway in choosing replacement equipment, too.

Shoot, I've thought for some time that the FAA ought to give credit and more leeway to aircraft with a BRS. Maybe no medical, or relaxed medical?
 
Stephen Poole said:
... because the government has a list of the Data That Must Be Submitted, whether that list makes sense in the real world or not.



This is not a binary solution set -- either was have airplanes that are inspected down to the adhesive properties of the paint, or we have planes falling out of the sky. Not saying that YOU are saying that, but it needs to be stressed. There is a marked lack of outside-of-the-box thinking in large government agencies, and the FAA is a poster child for this.

Crazy examples off the top of my head, not directly related to Tantalum's original post: differentiate between flying for hire and flying for pleasure. The latter should include allowing friends to pay more than half the cost on a pleasure cruise. It should also grant considerable leeway in choosing replacement equipment, too.

Shoot, I've thought for some time that the FAA ought to give credit and more leeway to aircraft with a BRS. Maybe no medical, or relaxed medical?
Click to expand...

We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think the requirements for certification are that out of line considering what people expect when they get into a TCd airplane, particularly when we’re discussing power plants and assuring the supporting airframe systems are acceptable.

As far as safety equipment such as shoulder harnesses and a BRS, I think a little more latitude wouldn’t be a bad idea, and we’re starting to see some of that. The caveat with loosening things up too far however is that you’ll always have someone who takes things too far and creates a product or airplane that is then unsafe. I know the risks I’m taking getting into an E/AB airplane but the risks of getting into a modified TCd airplane may largely be unknown.
 
mondtster said:
But it didn’t work so well in the case of Boeing with the 737,
Click to expand...
One could argue that the reason for the problems with the 737 was that Boeing was trying every way they could to avoid having to re-certify the airplane with a new configuration to properly accommodate the new engines.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
One could argue that the reason for the problems with the 737 was that Boeing was trying every way they could to avoid having to re-certify the airplane with a new configuration to properly accommodate the new engines.
Click to expand...

I’m sure that was indeed a contributing factor. But that begs the question as to why? Was it because of the burdensome FAA certification requirements to create a whole new type certificate for the plane or was it people being people and seeing a way they could work around the problem and possibly save a lot of money and time?

I’m sure the latter was at least a contributing factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top