If you were King for a day...Make GA better.

1. Elect myself dictator for life with my successor to be named by me.
2. Fire all members of Congress
3. Fix General Aviation
4. Institute National Healthcare payed for by your taxes ( they have screwed it up so badly it really is the only way to fix it ).
5. Institute a flat tax as a percentage of income. EVERYONE PAYS NO EXCEPTIONS
6. Have lunch
7. Begin to fix the rest of this countrys problems
8 Take the next day off and go fly !
 
Did someone say King for a day? :rolleyes:


Nauga,
and GI Joe in panty hose
 
Shepherd said:
Do away with the pilot certificate program, completely, then:
1. Everyone starts as a sports pilot with minimum IFR training (but no endorsement for IFR).
2. Everything else becomes an add-on endorsement. Night, long distance cross country, etc.
3. After 100 hrs (in a given time period), PIC you can get endorsed for heavier planes up to 5,000 lbs ? (Haven't thought much on weight), and complex aircraft. Each type is a separate endorsement, including Seaplane.
4. After 200 hrs (in a given time period), PIC you can get endorsed for IFR, multiengine, jet.
5. After 300 hrs (in a given time period), PIC you can work on commercial and next heavy category.
6. Replace exams with the endorsement flights. You want the next step, you fly with the instructor until you can do it.
Make each time step cover no more than 2 year? If you aren't flying 50 hrs a year you can't "step up" to the next level? Opinions, please.

Add whatever labels puff up your ego to each of the items. Or add epaulets.

Here is my reasoning.
The entire FAA pilot certification system is a heap of mouldering dung. The exams are idiotic, and bear little to no relationship to what actually happens in an airplane.
I read a lot of crap about sports pilots "not getting trained" It's BS, pure and simple.
If an instructor is doing his job instead of lining his pockets, the Sport Pilot would be doing all the requirements for the existing PPL, then take the Sport test.

The existing PPL is a death sentence. Look at the statistics. We turn people loose with as little as 60 hours of flight time and a fat head.
They hop in too much plane, or buy too much plane, or they fly 3 hours a year, and kill themselves and innocent bystanders because they know everything they need to know to pass an FAA exam, they have a plastic card in their pocket that says they are a pilot, but they can't fly worth a damn.
That comes with experience.
So you force them to get the hours before they can move on to the next step.
Costs go down, deaths go down, experience goes up, the arcane, feudal lifetime appointment DPE system goes away.
GA is saved!

So it is written, great Pharaoh, so it is done.
Click to expand...

Congratulations. You just killed GA.
 
Shepherd said:
Do away with the pilot certificate program, completely, then:
1. Everyone starts as a sports pilot with minimum IFR training (but no endorsement for IFR).
2. Everything else becomes an add-on endorsement. Night, long distance cross country, etc.
Click to expand...
So you want people to do the equivalent training of PPL plus IR just to get a sport pilot license? It will probably cost $18,000 to do that. Then you want even more training just to fly X-C? If that's how it worked I would never have been able to afford getting into flying. I thought this thread is about making GA better, not destroying it.
 
Allow all regulatory compliance maintenance and training to be tax deductible. Annuals, ad, adsb, certification training, bfr, etc.
 
Last edited:
First, what does better mean? Safer? Cheaper? More attractive to more people?
 
Brand new airplanes that cost $50,000 and go well over 200 knots. Annual costs that equal a car as far as maintenance goes. Hangar costs capped to under $100 a month.

I'm the king, my ideas don't have to be feasible, right?
 
StevieTimes said:
Brand new airplanes that cost $50,000 and go well over 200 knots. Annual costs that equal a car as far as maintenance goes. Hangar costs capped to under $100 a month.

I'm the king, my ideas don't have to be feasible, right?
Click to expand...

Will Rodgers was asked about how to solve the "U-boat problem" during the 1st World War. He replied "Boil the oceans!" When asked "How would you do that?" he replied "I'm a policy maker. That's an implementation problem." or words to that effect.
 
I watch a lot of foreign motorsports these days and I am always amazed that they can do those activities, then I remember that lawsuits have ruined everything these days. So start there, get rid of the useless lawsuits every time some clown buries his plane in the earth. In this day and age, if you do not know that airplanes(any form of transportation for that matter) can kill you, then you shouldn't be allowed out in public.
1. stop the BS lawsuits
2. allow non TSO'd parts for GA(under XXXXlbs)
3. Make the cost of flight training and endorsements a tax write off/exempt
4. Driver license medicals(if you can drive to the airport then you can fly away from it)
5. get rid of security fences at all GA airports, make them inviting places instead of prisons.
6. Make it legal to haul Coors beer east of the Mississippi!
 
PPC1052 said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Simple answer, but to a large extent cheaper and safer stand in some amount of opposition. The certification process is to improve safety. You can argue that it doesn't always, (and I'd agree in some cases) but it's beats the heck out of Chinese junk parts. Certainly better/more frequent, more strenuous training would improve safety and raise costs. Lowering costs would improve access (and possibly desirability) but might very well do it at the cost of safety. So, like in most endeavors, choose your tradeoffs.
 
I think in general, liability laws should be re-written. In many countries there is no personal liability (granted there is usually paid health care and disability available in those same countries...), the government bears the burden of seeking damages against neglect or malfeasance.

This may sound like a nanny state but it's really quite freeing. It eliminates the feeling that Joe Blow on the street with a lawyer could be your next litigant and take you for all you're worth if he trips on your sidewalk.

Same would apply towards aviation. Someone augers in because they forgot how to fly an airplane, the manufacturer doesn't bear a liability and can't be sued by the estate. But in the event Cessna made wings that fall off because they started using lower grade aluminum to cut costs, then the gov't would be in their rights to go after them.

I think we'll find the price for a lot of things go down. The price of litigation is built into nearly every product and service we consume. Health care, aviation, cars, baby toys, amusement parks, electronics, you name it. If you can be sued because of it, the manufacturer has factored that into the price and has already passed that cost to the consumer.
 
jsstevens said:
Simple answer, but to a large extent cheaper and safer stand in some amount of opposition. The certification process is to improve safety. You can argue that it doesn't always, (and I'd agree in some cases) but it's beats the heck out of Chinese junk parts. Certainly better/more frequent, more strenuous training would improve safety and raise costs. Lowering costs would improve access (and possibly desirability) but might very well do it at the cost of safety. So, like in most endeavors, choose your tradeoffs.
Click to expand...
There is a limit to that as well. When a couple of wires that are 4 feet long to hook up a landing light cost over $400, now we are bordering on looney tunes. These are not complex machines we are talking about either. There are parts that might be nice to have that are up to a standard or two but then again if we quit blaming accidents on machine parts that will never have 100% reliability and assigning a monetary compensation for those then we would move forward into a better future.
Look at the cost of automobiles these days! Production line technology was implemented to make things cheaper and more accessible to the masses......until the bureaucrats stepped in with all the regulation and more regulation and more rules and more required nonsense and more regulations to clarify the already burdensome regulations and then more laws etc etc. Things are a bit out of hand and the costs just keep going up. It is counter productive to everybody involved.
 
#1. Make learning how to fly less expensive for new pilots.

#2. That 50K airplane that can go over 200 knots is a great idea but it would definitely require an alternate fuel and engine.

#3. Make flying like a "brotherhood" that people want to be a part of and welcome new pilots NO MATTER WHAT THEY FLY. When I first started learning how to fly I didn't feel welcome at all but my desire to fly overcame that. This is something we can ALL do for free!!
 
Acrodustertoo said:
There is a limit to that as well. When a couple of wires that are 4 feet long to hook up a landing light cost over $400, now we are bordering on looney tunes. These are not complex machines we are talking about either. There are parts that might be nice to have that are up to a standard or two but then again if we quit blaming accidents on machine parts that will never have 100% reliability and assigning a monetary compensation for those then we would move forward into a better future.
Look at the cost of automobiles these days! Production line technology was implemented to make things cheaper and more accessible to the masses......until the bureaucrats stepped in with all the regulation and more regulation and more rules and more required nonsense and more regulations to clarify the already burdensome regulations and then more laws etc etc. Things are a bit out of hand and the costs just keep going up. It is counter productive to everybody involved.
Click to expand...

I agree that much of it has become absurd. I have a friend who had a lovely C-170. The starter solenoid went out. The Cessna part (this was 2005ish) was ~$180. The identical part (minus the Cessna part number) from NAPA (it was actually sourced for a tractor) was $15. That's absurd. Cessna did not design a special purpose part in the 1950's, they bought an existing part from an existing manufacturer. Who still makes the part.

Now, that said, a Chinese knockoff part for $5, which might be fine but which also might catch fire (see some of Nate's postings on Chinese electronic parts) would not be a good alternative. Fire on your tractor, probably an inconvenience. Fire in your airplane, gonna be a bad day. Maybe fatal if you're cruising along at 10,000 feet and can't get it on the ground fast enough.

So again, tradeoffs. What's safe enough? Who's capable of really making that assessment? I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to do so but I have a very wide range of both experience and education.

John
 
jsstevens said:
I agree that much of it has become absurd. I have a friend who had a lovely C-170. The starter solenoid went out. The Cessna part (this was 2005ish) was ~$180. The identical part (minus the Cessna part number) from NAPA (it was actually sourced for a tractor) was $15. That's absurd. Cessna did not design a special purpose part in the 1950's, they bought an existing part from an existing manufacturer. Who still makes the part.

Now, that said, a Chinese knockoff part for $5, which might be fine but which also might catch fire (see some of Nate's postings on Chinese electronic parts) would not be a good alternative. Fire on your tractor, probably an inconvenience. Fire in your airplane, gonna be a bad day. Maybe fatal if you're cruising along at 10,000 feet and can't get it on the ground fast enough.

So again, tradeoffs. What's safe enough? Who's capable of really making that assessment? I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to do so but I have a very wide range of both experience and education.

John
Click to expand...
In my experience, pilots are a very astute and demanding bunch. They will track down the most discerning information and scrutinize parts and tools to no end. We are after all then ones whose butt is on the line. There are those who will bypass this thinking of course and operate with the cheapest available.
I knew a guy in North Carolina that built an EXP "parasol" using lumber yard plywood and painted with latex house paint. Every time he took off in that thing I was a bit scared, he flew it for over a month before he finished putting the rear brace/strut and attach mounts on his landing gear! I am still curious to this day what ever happened to that plane. It was still registered at that airport the last time I looked a couple of years ago.
 
Salty said:
Allow all regulatory compliance maintenance and training to be tax deductible. Annuals, ad, adsb, certification training, bfr, etc.
Click to expand...
Better still to just drop the Federal tax rate to a flat 10%. That frees up a lot of cash.
 
FloridaPilot said:
#1. Make learning how to fly less expensive for new pilots.

#2. That 50K airplane that can go over 200 knots is a great idea but it would definitely require an alternate fuel and engine.

#3. Make flying like a "brotherhood" that people want to be a part of and welcome new pilots NO MATTER WHAT THEY FLY. When I first started learning how to fly I didn't feel welcome at all but my desire to fly overcame that. This is something we can ALL do for free!!
Click to expand...
Barbed wire fences and "challenges" on the ramp sure don't make anyone, even experienced pilots, feel welcomed.
 
Salty said:
Allow all regulatory compliance maintenance and training to be tax deductible. Annuals, ad, adsb, certification training, bfr, etc.
Click to expand...
That benefits people in high tax brackets that need the relief less. Tax exemption, yeah!
 
goodkng2.jpg


It's good to be the king......
 
General Aviation needs more good press... the only time I seem to hear about general aviation in the general media is when there is a crash, and typically the moral of the story always follows the same recipe, that "a small single engine Cessna crashed, no flight plan filed, etc." with any additional (not necessarily relevant) details thrown in for good measure... something like "recently divorced pilot lost his job just days before taking off without a flight plan and crashing his 50 year old single engine Cessna" <- that certainly doesn't do our "hobby" any favors..

So as king I would find ways to highlight the cool, safe, helpful, "magical" aspects of flying as a hobby and find ways to make flying safer not through regulation but through different training techniques
 
Incidentally:
FloridaPilot said:
#1. Make learning how to fly less expensive for new pilots.

#2. That 50K airplane that can go over 200 knots is a great idea but it would definitely require an alternate fuel and engine.

#3. Make flying like a "brotherhood" that people want to be a part of and welcome new pilots NO MATTER WHAT THEY FLY. When I first started learning how to fly I didn't feel welcome at all but my desire to fly overcame that. This is something we can ALL do for free!!
Click to expand...
**I whole heartedly agree

your point 1: flying is really cool and the majority of people that I meet who find out I am a pilot think it's really cool and have admitted thinking about taking lessons, etc., but most assume that it is too hard, too costly, and too dangerous. Most people, especially today's 20 somethings, don't have an extra $10K-$20K to sink into a hobby that has no real "value" - many people in that age group are struggled to earn in the $50K to $70K salary bracket and have to contend with high rents, student loans, etc.

your point 2: really relates to number 1. The cost of airplanes is high, however I have always struggled to understand why, at least for small single engine 4 seaters. Ultimately the principles of flight haven't changed so it seems crazy that 1,500 lbs of sheet metal should be that expensive.. what you're really paying for is all the administrative work and legal protections the manufacturers need... tack on above that the "luxury" factor I am sure companies like Cirrus make a very healthy margin on their planes..

your point 3: there does seem to be an elite club feel to it... I worked hard to look and get past that, but unless the local club or flying school is really cool I can definitely understand how someone new to aviation would feel turned off or unwelcome to the sport... I flew through a couple different clubs and frankly until joining Plus One none of them were really that inclusive
 
And another thing; certian ADs, such as cylinders, and props, and other very expensive ADs which came about due to faulty manufacturing,
cost of compliance should be eaten by the manufacturers of those faulty parts, not passed on to the owners of the affected aircraft.
 
paflyer said:
Barbed wire fences and "challenges" on the ramp sure don't make anyone, even experienced pilots, feel welcomed.
Click to expand...

That is true but necessary, I was thinking about actually belonging there and not being welcomed. I didn't say throw me a party but if pilots see that I'm new be friendly if I just want to have a conversation with you about airplanes. Luckily, I get my fix on POA....

[QUOTE="Zeldman, post: 2252168, member: 19531"

]
goodkng2.jpg


It's good to be the king......[/QUOTE]

LOVE IT!!!!! Miss Mel Brooks!!
 
Shepherd said:
No, I made it more logical and safer.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing but you also significantly raised the barrier to entry and ability of people to fly even just a little which whether you like it or not is extremely detrimental to the hobby. As others have stated we need to get more people out flying and reduce costs not raise them. I think we would all love to achieve what you laid out and be as safe as can be but for a lot of us more training would eat up or money to actually go have fun.
 
I forgot to mention something, but since I'm the king, I say it's OK.

I would make airplane rentals in line with car rentals. I recently paid around three hundred bucks to drive a minivan (a 182 equivalent, I reckon) for a week, unlimited mileage.

I want that same deal.

(yes, I like the idea that as king, I come up with the awesome ideas, and I leave those pesky implementation details to my people)
 
Along the lines of making it more like car rentals, King Richard would mandate a national currency database for rental places, so that if you're checked out and current in type at one FBO/club, you can rent that type anywhere.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
7. Build airstrips alongside all highway rest areas the next time the construction equipment is there for repaving (that was proposed when the interstates were being built; the cost would have been a trivial addition to the highway cost).
Click to expand...

Can you cite a source for that? I've never heard that one before.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top