V8 172

Bell206 said:
The problem with a no-regulation plan is that the US would have to resign from all their international treaties, agreements, and ICAO. So imagine what would happen to the domestic aviation industry if they couldn't sell products and articles or operate N reg/built aircraft outside the US. A simple example is the owner maintained aircraft in CA which can't be exported or flown outside CA due to that TCCA rule does not meet the requirements of several bi-lateral agreements and ICAO guidelines.
Click to expand...

Depends on who wanted to buy Boeing stuff. LOL. Treaty? What treaty? Oh, that old thing... haha.

Anything lawyers make, they’ll happily rip up, for the right price. Or create twenty alternatives. New treaty? Billable hours! LOL

But anyway, point still stands that not much would happen, de-regulating quite a bit of it, other than the paperwork would go somewhere else.

The powerful wouldn’t be inconvenienced by the above for very long.

“Fix it. I’m flying to Paris tomorrow to go shopping. Why did I pay good money to get you elected?” :)
 
The 'public use' angle is interesting. If they could get a few hundred flying with various state agencies, it's a great way to get lots of real-world data. I wish them, Deltahawk, and all the other innovators great success. (But probably won't be an early adopter.)
 
wheaties said:
An aluminum block? You can't overhaul aluminum. No one rebores those; you replace. I question the 3000 TB"O" and wonder if what they really want is to say 3000 TB"R." Even then, Continental only has a 2400hr TBR aluminum block engine and those don't push you into experimental!

Don't see hp listed, 8 cylinders instead of 4 and ethanol allowed!? Good luck, I do wish them the best. Also, smart on them not to go domestic, liability in the USA is insane.
Click to expand...

Steel sleeves-bore over, or resleeve. Not to mention that LS blocks are a dime a dozen, unless they are doing something special with them.
 
Would have to be more involved than that, dry sump oil systems are put on road race cars all the time, and still wouldn't require replacing a block at overhaul.
 
Sierra_Hotel said:
Would have to be more involved than that, dry sump oil systems are put on road race cars all the time,
Click to expand...

I vaguely recall that their web site says that they modify the block for the reasons stated - oil system. The web site is small but poorly organised and I have not checked back.
 
Spring Ford said:
I think their web site says they modify them - maybe the oil system to deal with other then 1g?
Click to expand...

What's distinctly different between non-aerobatic Continental and Lycoming engine oil systems and an automotive engine? They both use a gerotor pump, are pressure fed, use gravity to facilitate drainback, and have an oil sump mounted on the bottom of the engine.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Just imagine aviation with no regulation. :eek:
Click to expand...

Just imagine stagnation due to over-regulation. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine it. Can you imagine the Wright Bros spending 15 years to get their engine or prop certified? Doubt Kitty Hawk would have happened if they had the constraints that today's innovators have. And today, innovation for the most part, is not happening.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Just imagine stagnation due to over-regulation. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine it. Can you imagine the Wright Bros spending 15 years to get their engine or prop certified? Doubt Kitty Hawk would have happened if they had the constraints that today's innovators have. And today, innovation for the most part, is not happening.
Click to expand...


Innovation is not happening today due to market demand. Back in the 60's through early 80's GA boomed, and had essentially the same regulations to deal with. At that time there was a market, and Cessna, Beech, Piper, Mooney, etc were churning out aircraft to meet the demand. That market has since dried up and is why we see low delivery numbers today.

Even this V8 conversion, if certified, would see a low sales number due to low demand, and the developers know that, hence why they are reluctant to sink the money into it (money in versus return).
 
I agree, but go deeper. What caused the market to dry up?

I believe demand dried up because people realized that GA was impractical, same as it is today (it is too damn hard, and too damn expensive for most, with very little practicality). As kids, we were sure that by the 21st century we'd all drive Jetson cars and we knew that Pan Am would take us into space, ala 2001: A Space Odyssey. But none of that happened and today we have $.5-1M four-seat single engine Lycoming or Continental powered airplanes... Still impractical, and based on innovation that happened before we went into regulation overdrive.

It is what we've become. We selfishly go along with over-regulation to preserve our comfort zone. Our forefathers had more freedom - they took risks and sometimes they boomed and sometimes they busted, but the boomers almost always advanced us all. In aviation, we routinely ridicule risk takers and demotivate entrepreneurs with a mindset of, "how do you make a million in aviation? Start with two million."

Doc Holliday said:
Innovation is not happening today due to market demand. Back in the 60's through early 80's GA boomed, and had essentially the same regulations to deal with. At that time there was a market, and Cessna, Beech, Piper, Mooney, etc were churning out aircraft to meet the demand. That market has since dried up and is why we see low delivery numbers today.

Even this V8 conversion, if certified, would see a low sales number due to low demand, and the developers know that, hence why they are reluctant to sink the money into it (money in versus return).
Click to expand...
 
JohnAJohnson said:
I agree, but go deeper. What caused the market to dry up?

I believe demand dried up because people realized that GA was impractical, same as it is today (it is too damn hard, and too damn expensive for most, with very little practicality). As kids, we were sure that by the 21st century we'd all drive Jetson cars and we knew that Pan Am would take us into space, ala 2001: A Space Odyssey. But none of that happened and today we have $.5-1M four-seat single engine Lycoming or Continental powered airplanes... Still impractical, and based on innovation that happened before we went into regulation overdrive.

It is what we've become. We selfishly go along with over-regulation to preserve our comfort zone. Our forefathers had more freedom - they took risks and sometimes they boomed and sometimes they busted, but the boomers almost always advanced us all. In aviation, we routinely ridicule risk takers and demotivate entrepreneurs with a mindset of, "how do you make a million in aviation? Start with two million."
Click to expand...

Regulation didn't dry up the market, your first paragraph sums that up. In reality, the certification regulations haven't changed that much since the GA boom of the 50's thru early 80's. Not sure where you are getting "regulation overdrive" from as with the exception of a few items, it's still pretty much the same.

JohnAJohnson said:
I believe demand dried up because people realized that GA was impractical, same as it is today (it is too damn hard, and too damn expensive for most, with very little practicality).
Click to expand...

There is your problem. GA is impractical, and is expensive. It was back in the 60's and 70's when Wichita was cranking them out by the thousands, using pretty much the same regulations we have today.

Look at the recent history on LSA's. Using your logic the skies and airports should be filled with LSA's, but they're not. Again, a very small market.

Then take a look at Robinson Helicopter. They've been cranking them out at impressive numbers, even when Bell said "there's no market for piston helicopters". Want to buy a new one and you will have to get on a waiting list. Regulation hasn't stopped them or slowed them down. They found a market and that drives demand.
 
Might be easier to just go ahead and certify this.

It's the T-Tail model with canard.

Below, demonstrating what a short field takeoff looks like.

images


edit: It even has a chute!
 
Last edited:
JohnAJohnson said:
What caused the market to dry up?
Click to expand...
One thing tanked the GA market, product liability. It was bad enough that Congress tried to push start it again with the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA) along with NASA and the AGATE program. You can blame "over-regulation" all you want, but the facts don't support it. If you want to see over-regulation read up on the EASA or UK CAA. Most aviation people over there would move a mountain to get the regulatory system we have.

But for discussion, can you give examples of what over-bearing regulations have kept the GA market from flourishing?
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
One thing tanked the GA market, product liability. It was bad enough that Congress tried to push start it again with the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (GARA) along with NASA and the AGATE program. You can blame "over-regulation" all you want, but the facts don't support it. If you want to see over-regulation read up on the EASA or UK CAA. Most aviation people over there would move a mountain to get the regulatory system we have.

But for discussion, can you give examples of what over-bearing regulations have kept the GA market from flourishing?
Click to expand...

Honest question: Why would our regulatory system help them?

Seems like your argument is for our product liability limits (which is regulation but not FAA regulation) for them more than any change in aviation regulation.

They (depending on the country) already have heavier aviation regulations, and noise regulations, and environmental regulations, and...

If they had ours of those things they might be happy at how lax we are I suppose.

Fuel is probably their biggest operating expense difference and one of the most significant things keeping them from flying bigger stuff, mostly due to taxes on it, and has waaaaaay more impact on GA there (from everything I read) than their aviation regulatory agencies.

Those who can afford the gas usually manage to figure out a ferry pilot to get whatever they want brought over, across the pond. That aircraft made here still has those liability limits (for the most part), so even they already benefit from those unless their government has higher consumer “protection” standards on 40 year old stuff.

Or newer stuff if they’re buying new.

Not seeing any particular FAA reg behaviors that would help them much. What are you thinking would help?
 
denverpilot said:
Honest question: Why would our regulatory system help them?

Seems like your argument is for our product liability limits (which is regulation but not FAA regulation) for them more than any change in aviation regulation.

They (depending on the country) already have heavier aviation regulations, and noise regulations, and environmental regulations, and...

If they had ours of those things they might be happy at how lax we are I suppose.

Fuel is probably their biggest operating expense difference and one of the most significant things keeping them from flying bigger stuff, mostly due to taxes on it, and has waaaaaay more impact on GA there (from everything I read) than their aviation regulatory agencies.

Those who can afford the gas usually manage to figure out a ferry pilot to get whatever they want brought over, across the pond. That aircraft made here still has those liability limits (for the most part), so even they already benefit from those unless their government has higher consumer “protection” standards on 40 year old stuff.

Or newer stuff if they’re buying new.

Not seeing any particular FAA reg behaviors that would help them much. What are you thinking would help?
Click to expand...
 
What killed GA? Airline deregulation! Before deregulation airline tickets were VERY expensive, even in coach. You could rent a plane and fly yourself as cheap as going by airline. If you had a passenger, it would be half the cost. Now going by airline is cheaper than the cost of the gas your car would take.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Innovation is not happening today due to market demand. Back in the 60's through early 80's GA boomed, and had essentially the same regulations to deal with. At that time there was a market, and Cessna, Beech, Piper, Mooney, etc were churning out aircraft to meet the demand. That market has since dried up and is why we see low delivery numbers today.

Even this V8 conversion, if certified, would see a low sales number due to low demand, and the developers know that, hence why they are reluctant to sink the money into it (money in versus return).
Click to expand...

Doc really got this right in his last 2 posts. I'd add raising labor rates and liability lawsuits in the 1980's were added catalysts accelerating Doc's point above.
 
Last edited:
Looks interesting, but if I were king I'd say a big "wow" would be getting to market an engine that could burn jet fuel and a long TBO. What about an uber cheap turbine that had an even longer TBO?

Well, time to wake up from this dream and get back to reality......
 
Kinder said:
What killed GA? Airline deregulation! Before deregulation airline tickets were VERY expensive, even in coach. You could rent a plane and fly yourself as cheap as going by airline. If you had a passenger, it would be half the cost. Now going by airline is cheaper than the cost of the gas your car would take.
Click to expand...

Not really

GA was and never has been an alternative to the airlines. Back in the GA boom of the 50's thru early 80's people were flying mainly as recreational.
 
Kinder said:
What killed GA? Airline deregulation! Before deregulation airline tickets were VERY expensive, even in coach. You could rent a plane and fly yourself as cheap as going by airline. If you had a passenger, it would be half the cost. Now going by airline is cheaper than the cost of the gas your car would take.
Click to expand...

Except the average person didn't fly prior to deregulation because of the prices.
You could say that Covid should be contributing to a GA resurgence between cancelled flights and fear of being enclosed in a big aluminum tube with a large amount of people with very questionable personal hygiene practices people may want to fly themselves for short hops.
 
WDD said:
Looks interesting, but if I were king I'd say a big "wow" would be getting to market an engine that could burn jet fuel and a long TBO. What about an uber cheap turbine that had an even longer TBO?

Well, time to wake up from this dream and get back to reality......
Click to expand...

Robinson Helicopter needed a turbine, and instead of just adapting the old Allison 250 series they went with new RR300. Again, they have a market and going that direction made financial sense.

Textron could adapt the same engine to their single engine airframes, but they don't because they know there's not a market.
 
NHWannabe said:
Except the average person didn't fly prior to deregulation because of the prices.
You could say that Covid should be contributing to a GA resurgence between cancelled flights and fear of being enclosed in a big aluminum tube with a large amount of people with very questionable personal hygiene practices people may want to fly themselves for short hops.
Click to expand...

Helping corporate more than GA.

Aviation Leak says European Corp Turboprop and Jet travel is already back to 89% of pre-Covid levels.

US is starting/lagging/whatever. FL was the most popular destination but fell off of number one this month.

The rich be a’wandering.

Both neighbors are back to regular schedules.
 
How come liability didn't tank the the auto and marine markets? And if people are gonna retort back "economies of scale are different", ok agreed, but is that liability? Sounds to me like it's an economies of scale problem being labeled a liability problem. Distinction without difference in the end I suppose.
 
Ford doesn't worry about lawsuits arising from a 1965 Fairlane accident. GM doesn't get concerned about someone wrecking a 1980 Impala. Brunswick doesn't seem concerned when a 1990 Sea Ray Express Cruiser sinks due to owner's lack of maintenance.

But let Johnnie PrivatePilot take his 1974 Cessna 172 into the clouds without an instrument rating, then form a smoking crater, you can expect Textron to get sued, Lycoming, Sensenich, Bendix, Garmin, etc.
 
Last edited:
Why GA declining? A mix of factors.

Hobbies come and go. Motorcycles used to be huge, but less and less are riding. Interests come and go, probably same for GA.

As well shutting down production in early 80’s killed demand.

But costs are much higher today vs not only 70’s but also 50’s and 60’s with the lower production. Why? Not sure. With today’s technology you’d think it wouldn’t be 5 times the cost.
 
WDD said:
Why GA declining? A mix of factors.

Hobbies come and go. Motorcycles used to be huge, but less and less are riding. Interests come and go, probably same for GA.

As well shutting down production in early 80’s killed demand.

But costs are much higher today vs not only 70’s but also 50’s and 60’s with the lower production. Why? Not sure. With today’s technology you’d think it wouldn’t be 5 times the cost.
Click to expand...

Technology that reduces manufacturing cost generally has higher Non-Recoverable Engineering (NRE) up front costs. Low volume production isn't worth setting up most automated stuff.
 
Bell206 said:
If you want to see over-regulation read up on the EASA or UK CAA. Most aviation people over there would move a mountain to get the regulatory system we have.
Click to expand...

Are you saying there is causality? GA in Europe (or lack thereof) and over regulation?

Bell206 said:
But for discussion, can you give examples of what over-bearing regulations have kept the GA market from flourishing?
Click to expand...

Sure, but I don't want to copy and paste all of Part 23 here. Instead, compare the timeline to bring an autopilot (or engine) to market pre WWII, and what that effort looks like today. I know there is a market for autopilots for our old airplanes, but market forces aren't the only factor in a heavily regulated economy. Only those able to ride through the regulation process can bring a product to market and no matter how good, it must conform to an existing paradigm. This helps to monopolize and increase cost.

It's not just aviation. We know that if today's regulations existed in the 30s, the Empire State Building could not have been built. Same with aviation.
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
Why would our regulatory system help them?
Click to expand...
If you’re referring to the differences between EASA and FAA systems it is rather wide ranging to the point that there’s not enough room on PoA to detail it out. Some areas are similar due to ICAO guidelines and our bi-lateral agreements. But other areas are black vs white. Here's a couple examples.

One major difference is that EASA is a fee based system vs the FAA tax-based system. For example, you want an EASA CRS certification you have to pick up the entire tab for the EASA inspectors to visit and certify your shop. Whereas the FAA shows up, inspects, and signs the documents all free of charge. Or imagine doing some pattern work and having to pay for every touch and go landing?

Another big difference is in maintenance certifications. A person in the US can obtain an A&P in as little of 30 months OJT and about $500-$1000 and be able to return to service their work. 3 more years and they can get an IA to signoff the remaining type work. With the EASA, to obtain an aircraft engineers license your looking at completing 17 modules of book/test full-time as there is no OJT for this part to the tune of $150,000-$175,000 (2014 dollars). Afterward, you still need OJT, then type ratings in some cases, before you can sign return to service. And there are no equivalent private IAs in their system. Imagine that system in the US. It almost happened with the FAR Part 66 attempt years ago.

The only aviation regulatory systems that are somewhat close to the FAA are the Aussie CASA and the TCCA. That is other than the various countries that copied the FARs for their own aviation system like the Peruvian RAPs.
denverpilot said:
Seems like your argument is for our product liability limits (which is regulation but not FAA regulation)
Click to expand...
Yes. But it also includes tort limits as well as this is the main cost driver in settlements. But while there are some product liability laws (not regulations) at the state level, there are no federal level laws on any limits. Even the GARA only protects OEMs on aircraft over 18 years old. And so long as over 50% of Congress are former or practicing lawyers/attorneys we will never see a tort limit.

And this is not just focused on aviation. Every industry is affected by excessive tort claim settlements. For example, everybody whines about those nifty new style gasoline cans. The reason Blitz shutdown (they made the old fashioned version for decades) was because one too many Bubbas tried to light the campfire with a plastic Blitz gas can and sued. It is what it is.
 
JohnAJohnson said:
Are you saying there is causality? GA in Europe (or lack thereof) and over regulation?
Click to expand...
Yes. And not just GA. All facets of EASA regulated aviation.
JohnAJohnson said:
Instead, compare the timeline to bring an autopilot (or engine) to market pre WWII, and what that effort looks like today.
Click to expand...
No comparison. If you want to compare start in 1959 after the Chicago Convention and the formation of ICAO. Anything prior to that is meaningless. 75% of the FARs we have today are due to our commitments to the Convention, ICAO, and other agreements. It’s these common regulations that permit our aviation products and articles to move freely on a global basis. It’s also the reason items certified in various countries are automatically certified in other member countries. To use your Auto-Pilot example, what would be the added costs to have that auto-pilot certified in every country you wanted to sell it or fly with it in?
JohnAJohnson said:
Sure, but I don't want to copy and paste all of Part 23 here.
Click to expand...
Here I pasted it below. Not much left is there? Part 23 went through a massive rewrite a number of years ago. Majority of it was moved down into Advisory Circulars (FAA acceptable data) which allowed the use of consensus standards. Why you ask? To try and jump start new GA interest since the LSA attempt fizzled. So how many new aircraft have you heard of on the drawing boards in the last 5 or 6 years?

PART 23—AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: NORMAL CATEGORY AIRPLANES

Contents

§23.1457 Cockpit voice recorders.

§23.1459 Flight data recorders.

§23.1529 Instructions for continued airworthiness.

Subpart A—General

§23.2000 Applicability and definitions.

§23.2005 Certification of normal category airplanes.

§23.2010 Accepted means of compliance.

Subpart B—Flight

Performance

§23.2100 Weight and center of gravity.

§23.2105 Performance data.

§23.2110 Stall speed.

§23.2115 Takeoff performance.

§23.2120 Climb requirements.

§23.2125 Climb information.

§23.2130 Landing.

Flight Characteristics

§23.2135 Controllability.

§23.2140 Trim.

§23.2145 Stability.

§23.2150 Stall characteristics, stall warning, and spins.

§23.2155 Ground and water handling characteristics.

§23.2160 Vibration, buffeting, and high-speed characteristics.

§23.2165 Performance and flight characteristics requirements for flight in icing conditions.

Subpart C—Structures

§23.2200 Structural design envelope.

§23.2205 Interaction of systems and structures.

Structural Loads

§23.2210 Structural design loads.

§23.2215 Flight load conditions.

§23.2220 Ground and water load conditions.

§23.2225 Component loading conditions.

§23.2230 Limit and ultimate loads.

Structural Performance

§23.2235 Structural strength.

§23.2240 Structural durability.

§23.2245 Aeroelasticity.

Design

§23.2250 Design and construction principles.

§23.2255 Protection of structure.

§23.2260 Materials and processes.

§23.2265 Special factors of safety.

Structural Occupant Protection

§23.2270 Emergency conditions.

Subpart D—Design and Construction

§23.2300 Flight control systems.

§23.2305 Landing gear systems.

§23.2310 Buoyancy for seaplanes and amphibians.

Occupant System Design Protection

§23.2315 Means of egress and emergency exits.

§23.2320 Occupant physical environment.

Fire and High Energy Protection

§23.2325 Fire protection.

§23.2330 Fire protection in designated fire zones and adjacent areas.

§23.2335 Lightning protection.

Subpart E—Powerplant

§23.2400 Powerplant installation.

§23.2405 Automatic power or thrust control systems.

§23.2410 Powerplant installation hazard assessment.

§23.2415 Powerplant ice protection.

§23.2420 Reversing systems.

§23.2425 Powerplant operational characteristics.

§23.2430 Fuel systems.

§23.2435 Powerplant induction and exhaust systems.

§23.2440 Powerplant fire protection.

Subpart F—Equipment

§23.2500 Airplane level systems requirements.

§23.2505 Function and installation.

§23.2510 Equipment, systems, and installations.

§23.2515 Electrical and electronic system lightning protection.

§23.2520 High-intensity Radiated Fields (HIRF) protection.

§23.2525 System power generation, storage, and distribution.

§23.2530 External and cockpit lighting.

§23.2535 Safety equipment.

§23.2540 Flight in icing conditions.

§23.2545 Pressurized systems elements.

§23.2550 Equipment containing high-energy rotors.

Subpart G—Flightcrew Interface and Other Information

§23.2600 Flightcrew interface.

§23.2605 Installation and operation.

§23.2610 Instrument markings, control markings, and placards.

§23.2615 Flight, navigation, and powerplant instruments.

§23.2620 Airplane flight manual.
 
I don't see how this new engine address constant speed propellors. I read it that it will be constantly adjusting RPM but a fixed pitch propellor on a 172 can not be both a climb prop and cruise prop. So is this limited to fixed pitch props?
 
I always hear at regulation killed this or that. I don't buy it. What I do buy is the decimation of the middle class and the loss of disposable income. Can't have a hobby for which only 5% of the population can buy into new and expect it to grow.
 
wheaties said:
I always hear at regulation killed this or that. I don't buy it. What I do buy is the decimation of the middle class and the loss of disposable income. Can't have a hobby for which only 5% of the population can buy into new and expect it to grow.
Click to expand...
So if this were able to be swapped in for any 180HP lycoming right now with no enormous stc, you don't think the market would jump at a new engine at 1/3 cost of the lycoming/conti variants? Certification rules and costs having to prove this engine platform in every variant would kill it right there.
 
SoonerAviator said:
So if this were able to be swapped in for any 180HP lycoming right now with no enormous stc, you don't think the market would jump at a new engine at 1/3 cost of the lycoming/conti variants? Certification rules and costs having to prove this engine platform in every variant would kill it right there.
Click to expand...

Would you put yourself, and your family, behind an unproven engine combination even if it was 1/3rd the cost of the proven variants?
 
Bell206 said:
If you’re referring to the differences between EASA and FAA systems it is rather wide ranging to the point that there’s not enough room on PoA to detail it out. Some areas are similar due to ICAO guidelines and our bi-lateral agreements. But other areas are black vs white. Here's a couple examples.

One major difference is that EASA is a fee based system vs the FAA tax-based system. For example, you want an EASA CRS certification you have to pick up the entire tab for the EASA inspectors to visit and certify your shop. Whereas the FAA shows up, inspects, and signs the documents all free of charge. Or imagine doing some pattern work and having to pay for every touch and go landing?

Another big difference is in maintenance certifications. A person in the US can obtain an A&P in as little of 30 months OJT and about $500-$1000 and be able to return to service their work. 3 more years and they can get an IA to signoff the remaining type work. With the EASA, to obtain an aircraft engineers license your looking at completing 17 modules of book/test full-time as there is no OJT for this part to the tune of $150,000-$175,000 (2014 dollars). Afterward, you still need OJT, then type ratings in some cases, before you can sign return to service. And there are no equivalent private IAs in their system. Imagine that system in the US. It almost happened with the FAR Part 66 attempt years ago.

The only aviation regulatory systems that are somewhat close to the FAA are the Aussie CASA and the TCCA. That is other than the various countries that copied the FARs for their own aviation system like the Peruvian RAPs.

Yes. But it also includes tort limits as well as this is the main cost driver in settlements. But while there are some product liability laws (not regulations) at the state level, there are no federal level laws on any limits. Even the GARA only protects OEMs on aircraft over 18 years old. And so long as over 50% of Congress are former or practicing lawyers/attorneys we will never see a tort limit.

And this is not just focused on aviation. Every industry is affected by excessive tort claim settlements. For example, everybody whines about those nifty new style gasoline cans. The reason Blitz shutdown (they made the old fashioned version for decades) was because one too many Bubbas tried to light the campfire with a plastic Blitz gas can and sued. It is what it is.
Click to expand...

Other than it being fee based (I knew that), none of that explains why them having our regulatory agency (FAA) would save or stimulate their GA, however.

Fuel and fees are their major chillers. Not really “regulations” unless we’re broadening waaaaay out to include basically over-taxation across the board, and calling that “aviation regulations”?

Was thinking more in terms of their “flying rules” than their nearly impossible to escape taxes. Pretty sure if their aviation authority didn’t collect those, some other agency over there would.

And it’s the costs of that, which seem to be their biggest damper on “GA” (by which I mean recreational GA).

But I get what you were saying now. Yeah, high cost. I was thinking y’all thought them flying under FAA rules would somehow save them from those. Doubt it heavily.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top