What if... Modernizing GA

[flyingcheesehead]

Cessna stood by its decision, however, and the first production Skycatcher took flight from the Shenyang facility in September 2009. By this point, orders exceeded 1,000.

Yes... There were 1000 preorders. We agree on that. But the numbers of orders over time don't agree with China being the problem. When they announced the China build, they had 850 orders. Over a year later when they started shipping, they had 1000, a net GAIN of 150 orders in spite of the worst economy of our lifetimes. So, China didn't scare people off, and your assertion that China caused "a cancellation of > 1000 firm orders" would mean that ALL of the orders were canceled because of China. If that's true, why didn't they cancel in the first year after the announcement?

One of the sources I was looking at yesterday said that $30K of the $50K increase was "to meet Textron profit targets"... They literally jacked it up in an effort to make more money. Doesn't seem to have worked so well.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I see no positive relation between surveillance and safety.

The FAA, airlines, and corporate aviation do. That's why we have FOQA.

Merely surveillance on its own doesn't do anything. It's surveillance combined with ensuring that the pilot knows they did something and corrects it. Hell, I recently uploaded all of my flight data for the last few years to FlySto, and discovered a few mistakes I hadn't realized. I know I've discovered some things in the past just from looking at my own data.

It would also allow for ensuring the correct training has been received. For example, if you don't want to go to an unpaved strip, great - But if you do, let's get an hour of instruction and 5 landings in, and note that in the system. Don't have the training? Panel alerts you when you put it in your flight plan and you have to specifically accept all liability on that flight or something.

Sorry, but I'm not seeing it, and the experiential data from similar attempts in other industries doesn't support it.

I'm not sure something to this level has actually been attempted in other industries.

If this worked. we would have seen a massive reduction in accident rates, cost, and price from automotive "nannies" like OnStar. The savings haven't materialized. What we HAVE seen, though, is higher prices for purchase, insurance, and repairs, due to the added system cost and increased complexity of the overall vehicle and systems.

Because their goal was never to make safer drivers, it was to make more money.

Of the ideas you're posting up here, I think this one is the most likely to end up driving prices higher, not lower.

I'd sure love to hear some other ideas for getting the large liability slice of the pie to be lower.

"it's even better if we can prevent accidents in the first place."

your post made it seem like you think we don't prevent accidents.

We don't do very well at it. We keep doing the same dumb stuff we've been doing for the last 50-75 years: Running out of gas, flying into situations you haven't trained for, botched buzz jobs and other such stuff. So how do we make these stop happening?

While I think your pricing is not realistic on several levels, the key to this is not developing the aircraft first but the viable market first, ie., who and how many would realistically buy a new aircraft? With that number you could then set your wants vs potential costs. This is basically SOP in the aviation industry and is still practiced today. Two prime examples are the Sky Courier and Denali. FEDEX wanted a twin-cargo aircraft for their feeder ops so approached Textron, after which they settled on the specs for the clean-sheet Courier. While Textron saw a potential larger market, they pulled trigger on the Courier with only FEDEX's 50 firm/50 option order for a total of 100 aircraft. And its a similar history for the Denali. So it doesn't take 1000s of new aircraft to make a market. Just committed individuals in that market which unfortunately the Part 91 recreational side has a historically bad track record with.

Yep... I think the best you can do with the goal of expanding GA is to charge a price equal to the incremental cost of the first aircraft off the line, and if that price is low enough, you might have enough demand that economies of scale kick in which let you recoup R&D costs after the first couple hundred and then start making a profit. Of course, this is utterly unrealistic in terms of meeting the expected quick-profit targets set by investors today, so the investment would have to come from people with an interest in making GA a healthy industry once again.

Economy of scale: if 3000 buyers want a 2-seater and 3000 want a 4-seater, it's cheaper to design and build a 4-seater for all of them.

Unless you end up with a 4-seater that's too expensive for the 2-seater buyers and too slow for the 4-seater buyers.

One of the issues with higher speeds is that you can't easily get there with a fixed pitch prop. And once you go to adjustable/constand speed prop, there will be significant purchase/maintenance costs.

Very true - But since I mentioned efficiency in all areas, I kinda think an adjustable prop of some sort is almost a requirement.

However, while today's CS props may be expensive, I'm sure we could do better... And I say that because I met a guy who has a constant-speed prop on his rubber band powered airplane and the prop weighs something like 1/10 of a gram. The world record holder has used that to get flights over an hour long on a tiny rubber-powered plane!

It's possible that we could use a simpler mechanism that's controlled and actuated electrically and based on airspeed and power setting. It wouldn't have to react super-fast the way a C/S prop does, it could simply be at a flat pitch for takeoff, transition to a higher pitch for climb, and go to fully coarse as necessary at cruise.

I see significant difference between monitoring an employee during his work-cycle to verify the quality of his work and the monitoring of a private person during his leisure by a company to determine the person's eligibility as a customer, especially when that company might then sell the data they record.

I'm not sure who would be particularly interested in that sort of data, beyond where you were going (which is already available thanks to your cell phone), other than an insurance company, which we'd be eliminating from the equation as part of it. There could be an agreement that your data only be used for purposes of safety improvements and not sold... If this particular idea were to work, there'd have to be an extensive purchase/operating agreement between the company and the buyer anyway.

 

[2-Bit Speed]

The FAA, airlines, and corporate aviation do. That's why we have FOQA.

Merely surveillance on its own doesn't do anything. It's surveillance combined with ensuring that the pilot knows they did something and corrects it. Hell, I recently uploaded all of my flight data for the last few years to FlySto, and discovered a few mistakes I hadn't realized. I know I've discovered some things in the past just from looking at my own data.

It would also allow for ensuring the correct training has been received. For example, if you don't want to go to an unpaved strip, great - But if you do, let's get an hour of instruction and 5 landings in, and note that in the system. Don't have the training? Panel alerts you when you put it in your flight plan and you have to specifically accept all liability on that flight or something.

I'm not sure something to this level has actually been attempted in other industries.

Because their goal was never to make safer drivers, it was to make more money.

I'd sure love to hear some other ideas for getting the large liability slice of the pie to be lower.

We don't do very well at it. We keep doing the same dumb stuff we've been doing for the last 50-75 years: Running out of gas, flying into situations you haven't trained for, botched buzz jobs and other such stuff. So how do we make these stop happening?

Yep... I think the best you can do with the goal of expanding GA is to charge a price equal to the incremental cost of the first aircraft off the line, and if that price is low enough, you might have enough demand that economies of scale kick in which let you recoup R&D costs after the first couple hundred and then start making a profit. Of course, this is utterly unrealistic in terms of meeting the expected quick-profit targets set by investors today, so the investment would have to come from people with an interest in making GA a healthy industry once again.

Unless you end up with a 4-seater that's too expensive for the 2-seater buyers and too slow for the 4-seater buyers.

Very true - But since I mentioned efficiency in all areas, I kinda think an adjustable prop of some sort is almost a requirement.

However, while today's CS props may be expensive, I'm sure we could do better... And I say that because I met a guy who has a constant-speed prop on his rubber band powered airplane and the prop weighs something like 1/10 of a gram. The world record holder has used that to get flights over an hour long on a tiny rubber-powered plane!

It's possible that we could use a simpler mechanism that's controlled and actuated electrically and based on airspeed and power setting. It wouldn't have to react super-fast the way a C/S prop does, it could simply be at a flat pitch for takeoff, transition to a higher pitch for climb, and go to fully coarse as necessary at cruise.

I'm not sure who would be particularly interested in that sort of data, beyond where you were going (which is already available thanks to your cell phone), other than an insurance company, which we'd be eliminating from the equation as part of it. There could be an agreement that your data only be used for purposes of safety improvements and not sold... If this particular idea were to work, there'd have to be an extensive purchase/operating agreement between the company and the buyer anyway.

I am really sick of arguing against the surveillance state. You and I fundamentally disagree on matters of privacy and self-responsibility. No amount of surveillance is going to stop Billy-Bob-Goat from jumping in his plane with minimum fuel, crashing, and then suing the manufacturer.

 

[hindsight2020]

Hydraulic constant speed props aren't complicated to produce and maintain. The pricing model/cost structure is FUBAR because aforementioned lack of economies of scale of this hobby, not because of the technical *challenges to variable props in 2024 (*there aren't any).

There's already electric const props out in the wild. Yes, they're laggy by comparison, and plagued by similar pricing woes because of even worse economies of scale.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I am really sick of arguing against the surveillance state. You and I fundamentally disagree on matters of privacy and self-responsibility. No amount of surveillance is going to stop Billy-Bob-Goat from jumping in his plane with minimum fuel, crashing, and then suing the manufacturer.

It's not the surveillance "state". The government isn't involved.

And I'm not even saying I like it, or that I'd buy it. I'm saying it's the first idea I had to combat the huge cost of everyone else's liability when it comes to flying.

I sure as heck wouldn't let the FAA see my flight data... But I *might* let Mooney see my flight data if it meant my airplane cost half as much.

I should point out that this has to be done right - And by right I mean in a non-punitive fashion. It's more a way to help keep pilots out of trouble before it happens, not a way to punish or scold them afterwards.

 

[StraightnLevel]

I think we can do quite a bit better than that on speed. A 172 or Archer can do 110. A modern design should be able to do much better. For example, you can pull a DA40 back to 7.5gph and still get 135 KTAS.

To me, that's the number - 135-140 KTAS isn't too fast to train in but is fast enough that for plenty of people it could be their forever plane. 400 miles in 3 hours.

Bolded is undoubtedly true, but I think it's the correct answer to the wrong question.

The question is: What speed and load combination is acceptable for buyers who have both the desire and enough disposable income to purchase a new plane? Having selected a speed/load combination, how many pilots/owners find it acceptable, and how many of them would buy a new plane vs. one of the existing models in the available used inventory?

IMO, the real underlying problem is that there are too many existing airworthy planes on the market. The vast majority of pilots who want a 140 ktas plane will buy something that already exists, rather than calling up Cirrus or Textron. If you lower the price of the new planes, the used plane market pricing will drop in response, because those existing airworthy planes have to go somewhere.

Put another way: I can buy a new SR-22 for just over $1M. I can also buy (or restore) a nice Mooney or Bonanza for closer to $200K that will perform about as well. Yes, it's nicer to show off a snazzy new plane to my friends, but is it really worth 5x as much invested capital?
Now, if the SR-22 somehow achieves a price reduction to get to, say, $500K, the existing Mooneys and Bonanzas will still be priced far lower. How low does the new plane have to go before the existing fleet will be ignored in favor of new planes? THAT is the price point you have to reach to really drive volume, and it seems unlikely to be achievable based on current material costs, much less our regulatory and manufacturing cost environment.

Now, let me pose a different question. What can be done with a new clean-sheet plane design that radically changes the utility/value for a buyer? If I compare a new SR-22 to a Bo or Mooney with a $100K glass panel upgrade, there's really not a lot of difference in performance and usability, but a lot more $$$ for the new Cirrus. What could change that? What else is there that could make a serious difference in buyers' desire to have a new plane instead of a used example? Inexpensive pressurization? Lower maintenance costs? Better fuel efficiency? Heads-up displays? What could a new plane have that you just can't get in the existing fleet?

 

[MauleSkinner]

I was thinking more like DA40 vs 172. The DA40 does tend to have a better payload, but not by a ton.

The design criteria for the DA40 probably was something like “better payload than a 172,” so once that criteria was met, they moved on to others.

 

[Tantalum]

I see a lot of critics here, but very little contribution towards the OPs ask. KInda sad. I don't mind critical positions per-se, but to be critical without offering any solution is the weak man's choice.

Welcome. I used to be much more prolific on this site many many years ago. I've pretty much stopped contributing, but do occasionally still peruse for the fun of it. You actually motivated me to add my first contribution here in a long time....

Dan Thomas is right, This comes up every couple years, a very long time ago I had even started a few of these threads. Yes, aviation technology is painfully antiquated and if it wasn't for Garmin we'd all still be flying behind steam six packs. However.. the GA world It's not the automotive world, people generally fly for two reasons

(1) To build hours and get an airline or commercial job
(2) Because they fly for fun

People in group one just need to do this efficiently. That means in short time and at a low cost. The Cessna 172 gets the job done. And to an extent an SR-20 helps prepare you for stepping into an airline job, especially if you plan to fly Airbus. Even the 172 are full G1000 so I really don't get the Cirrus hate..

People in group two vary.. We all have a different mission, creating something in volume that fits this mission is nearly impossible for this relatively small group of buyers. What you see out there from a certificated standpoint is basically what has been done. I have a number of friends that own and most of them own things like a 170, Pacer, Club, Carbon Cub, 140, RV6, etc., while a few do own Cirrus and Bonanza, I find that most people just like the fun of flying and each of our mission is very different. There is no one product for this group. Supercars are a great analogy actually; tiny (actually comparable when looking at new) volumes and very specific buyers who want very specific things

I honestly think you have to go experimental and stick with an established and reputable builder like Vans if you want to create something 'new' or unique to your mission

 

[Tantalum]

A 172 or Archer can do 110. A modern design should be able to do much better. For example, you can pull a DA40 back to 7.5gph and still get 135 KTAS.

I mean that's pretty much an rv6 or 6A or rv7..

 

[AV8R_87]

Unless you end up with a 4-seater that's too expensive for the 2-seater buyers and too slow for the 4-seater buyers.

Splitting the market will result in a more expensive option for both sides.

 

[Barrett50]

Yes... There were 1000 preorders. We agree on that. But the numbers of orders over time don't agree with China being the problem. When they announced the China build, they had 850 orders. Over a year later when they started shipping, they had 1000, a net GAIN of 150 orders in spite of the worst economy of our lifetimes. So, China didn't scare people off, and your assertion that China caused "a cancellation of > 1000 firm orders" would mean that ALL of the orders were canceled because of China. If that's true, why didn't they cancel in the first year after the announcement?

One of the sources I was looking at yesterday said that $30K of the $50K increase was "to meet Textron profit targets"... They literally jacked it up in an effort to make more money. Doesn't seem to have worked so well.

I had a whole big dissertation written up, and deleted it all. If you think the prod move to China supported the sales of the plane, it's a semi-free country, so go right ahead. I already provided two indie links to the contrary and there are a lot more out there, and nothing is going to change your mind.

 

[Dana]

If this particular idea were to work, there'd have to be an extensive purchase/operating agreement between the company and the buyer anyway.

Icon tried that, and buyers revolted.

It's not the surveillance "state". The government isn't involved.

Does it really matter whether it's the government, or google, or the insurance company, or Cessna?

I'll take my freedom and privacy over anybody else's vision of my security or safety.

 

[Bell206]

Icon tried that, and buyers revolted.

Does it really matter whether it's the government, or google, or the insurance company, or Cessna?

I'll take my freedom and privacy over anybody else's vision of my security or safety.

Out of simple curiosity and in the context of the OPs point, if Cessna or Vans offered a new aircraft with full insurance at a 50% discount provided you them sent them data files of your flight profiles on a regular basis, you would decline the 50% offer?

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Out of simple curiosity and in the context of the OPs point, if Cessna or Vans offered a new aircraft with full insurance at a 50% discount provided you them sent them data files of your flight profiles on a regular basis, you would decline the 50% offer?

I'd want very clear literature on how the data would be used and who could access it (including buying it) before committing.

 

[nauga]

I'll take my freedom and privacy over anybody else's vision of my security or safety.

Can I have your transponder?

Nauga,
emitting

 

[MauleSkinner]

Out of simple curiosity and in the context of the OPs point, if Cessna or Vans offered a new aircraft with full insurance at a 50% discount provided you them sent them data files of your flight profiles on a regular basis, you would decline the 50% offer?

Part of the problem is that the goal would be to conform to a more limiting view of what’s considered “safe,” “acceptable,” or “good risk” that is probably based on an “average pilot” that doesn’t exist, and has nothing to do with real proficiency or exercising good judgment.

Insurance is about risk and P&L, and that can be at odds with safety.

 

[StraightnLevel]

I'd want very clear literature on how the data would be used and who could access it (including buying it) before committing.

That's not enough. Our government has already clarified that they can and will subpoena this sort of data for whatever purposes they like. The only way to be secure is for that data to not be stored anywhere other than by you yourself. Otherwise, the 4th Amendment does not apply.

 

[Bob Noel]

That's not enough. Our government has already clarified that they can and will subpoena this sort of data for whatever purposes they like. The only way to be secure is for that data to not be stored anywhere other than by you yourself. Otherwise, the 4th Amendment does not apply.

the only way to be really secure would be for the data not to exist at all.

 

[Dana]

Can I have your transponder?

Nauga,
emitting

I don't have one. And no "engine driven electrical system", so I don't need one.

Dana,
not emitting

 

[Bell206]

Part of the problem is that the goal would be to conform to a more limiting view of what’s considered “safe,” “acceptable,” or “good risk” that is probably based on an “average pilot” that doesn’t exist, and has nothing to do with real proficiency or exercising good judgment.

The existing monitoring programs I’m familiar with are not set-up subjective to an “average pilot” but set up to monitor established aircraft parameters and company policy parameters. They track things like bank angles, airspeed, altitude, engine RPM, fuel level, course deviations, etc. All hard limits.

So any recorded event is not related to the “type of pilot” but how the aircraft was flown regardless of pilot. In reality, "unsafe pilots" tend to exceed aircraft limits or operational policies more than other pilots. And considering each catastrophic flight safety event is made up of a number of lesser safety events, this type monitoring allows for a proactive method to mitigate the lesser events before it becomes worse. And is supported by the reduced accidents/incident rates.

I'd want very clear literature on how the data would be used and who could access it (including buying it) before committing.

Interesting. So if it’s a straight safety vs privacy comparison, then privacy is more important; but if that same safety has an acceptable monetary value, then privacy is not as important?

 

[MauleSkinner]

The existing monitoring programs I’m familiar with are not set-up subjective to an “average pilot” but set up to monitor established aircraft parameters and company policy parameters. They track things like bank angles, airspeed, altitude, engine RPM, fuel level, course deviations, etc. All hard limits.

Who sets the “company policy parameters,” and what are they based on in the GA scenario?

 

[2-Bit Speed]

Interesting. So if it’s a straight safety vs privacy comparison, then privacy is more important; but if that same safety has an acceptable monetary value, then privacy is not as important?

I think you've misinterpreted me.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Now, let me pose a different question. What can be done with a new clean-sheet plane design that radically changes the utility/value for a buyer? If I compare a new SR-22 to a Bo or Mooney with a $100K glass panel upgrade, there's really not a lot of difference in performance and usability, but a lot more $$$ for the new Cirrus. What could change that? What else is there that could make a serious difference in buyers' desire to have a new plane instead of a used example? Inexpensive pressurization? Lower maintenance costs? Better fuel efficiency? Heads-up displays? What could a new plane have that you just can't get in the existing fleet?

Excellent point, and the sort of somewhat-radical thinking that got me on this kick to begin with.

Inexpensive pressurization and an efficient powerplant that works up high would be great. I think lots of people would be interested in a turbine or something with that kind of smoothness that had fuel efficiency more like a piston engine.

The design criteria for the DA40 probably was something like “better payload than a 172,” so once that criteria was met, they moved on to others.

True... And I think in that particular example they sacrificed making the useful load even better for other things like safety. For example, the wing has dual main spars so it's the only certified composite aircraft without a life limit, and they put aluminum fuel tanks in between so to my knowledge there hasn't yet been a post-crash fire in an otherwise survivable accident.

But, I wonder how light you could make an airplane in the 4-seat, fixed-gear, 180hp class if you designed with that being your primary goal.

People in group two vary.. We all have a different mission, creating something in volume that fits this mission is nearly impossible for this relatively small group of buyers. What you see out there from a certificated standpoint is basically what has been done. I have a number of friends that own and most of them own things like a 170, Pacer, Club, Carbon Cub, 140, RV6, etc., while a few do own Cirrus and Bonanza, I find that most people just like the fun of flying and each of our mission is very different. There is no one product for this group. Supercars are a great analogy actually; tiny (actually comparable when looking at new) volumes and very specific buyers who want very specific things

I honestly think you have to go experimental and stick with an established and reputable builder like Vans if you want to create something 'new' or unique to your mission

Yes, there are certainly missions beyond going from point A to point B, and even within the A-to-B crowd there's a wide variety of missions. You certainly can't do it all with one plane, but making a lineup of planes that each serve as wide of a mission group as possible is one way to expand the addressable market for each model. That's why I suggested a plane that is capable of both backcountry and aerobatic flying, and it'd probably be a decent poke-holes-in-the-sky $100 burger bird as well.

Can I have your transponder?

Nauga,
emitting

You win PoA for the day! I love your posts and custom sign-offs...

Insurance is about risk and P&L, and that can be at odds with safety.

How so?

The idea is to lower the number of incidents/accidents to lower the risk and the associated cost.

That's not enough. Our government has already clarified that they can and will subpoena this sort of data for whatever purposes they like. The only way to be secure is for that data to not be stored anywhere other than by you yourself. Otherwise, the 4th Amendment does not apply.

Apple does it with encryption... Of course, that doesn't work in our scenario since the mothership needs to analyze the data.

Maybe the mothership just stores and broadcasts the training and currency profile to the airplane, and the software for flagging things runs on-device. But then you'd be looking at maybe needing to have the plane potentially take control away from the pilot if they're flying into an unsafe situation and I don't particularly like that idea either.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Who sets the “company policy parameters,” and what are they based on in the GA scenario?

I look at this as being a superset of the Cirrus Access program that existed for a short time in the mid-2000s.

The idea was to allow the type of customer Cirrus was going for - A reasonably high net worth individual who isn't a pilot yet but wants to buy a Cirrus for the things the Cirrus is good for (travel) - but get value out of their purchase right away rather than having to spend a lot of time training and potentially getting themselves into trouble by doing what the Cirrus is good for before they're really ready to.

The way it worked is that you paid an extra sum upon purchase of the aircraft, and you would be fully insured by Cirrus and given a CSIP qualified instructor (who you got to interview and choose) to be at your beck and call for a year. You would do training flights, but you'd also be able to go places safely while getting dual instruction in your airplane, and if you got tired or something the CFI could simply fly the plane for you, removing a lot of the IM SAFE and get-there-itis pressures.

You weren't even allowed to solo until 50 hours to remove that pressure... And the idea was that at the end of one year you would have 250 hours or so total time, PP-ASEL with instrument rating, and some great cross country experience.

Of course, it wasn't cheap - Something like $80,000 IIRC, of which $50,000+ went to paying the instructor - But I always thought it was an excellent idea. Unfortunately it didn't work well enough to make it worthwhile for Cirrus since not a whole lot of people wanted to tack that much money onto an already expensive purchase. However, it worked out pretty well for some of the CFIs from what I've heard, as many of the buyers quickly wanted to move into bigger faster aircraft and ride in the back so a lot of those instructors ended up flying things like TBMs and light jets.

Anyway, back to the question at hand - The policies and procedures would be set by the manufacturer, but based on the pilot's training so that each pilot would have the opportunity and the incentive to do more training and learn new things.

 

[Bell206]

Who sets the “company policy parameters,”

In 135 ops those parameters are listed in their various manuals, eg., GOM, SMS, etc.

and what are they based on in the GA scenario?

On the private, recreational GA side, you could track Part 91 ops limits in addition to aircraft limits or develop a tracking limit based on the top 3 causes for recreational aircraft accidents and incidents in general or by specific aircraft model. But usually what gets recorded initially in the existing systems are basic things like multiple course/altitude deviations over a set time frame, low fuel levels, low and slow flight maneuvers, non-training multiple go-arounds, etc. which become tell-tales to how the aircraft is being flown when combined with other data like weather conditions or aircraft location.

 

[ateamer]

It doesn’t necessarily take technology. You can self-debrief every flight. Make notes during the flight - when able, and use abbreviations to keep them short - and after securing the plane, sit down with yourself.

Review what happened, what wasn’t done right, and then what you will do to improve it. Review the flight on whatever app you use, with an eye for track and altitude deviations. Write down the results of the debrief and follow up. If it’s going to be effective, you need to be honest with yourself and open to accepting that you make mistakes on every flight.

 

[StraightnLevel]

I look at this as being a superset of the Cirrus Access program that existed for a short time in the mid-2000s.

The idea was to allow the type of customer Cirrus was going for - A reasonably high net worth individual who isn't a pilot yet but wants to buy a Cirrus for the things the Cirrus is good for (travel) - but get value out of their purchase right away rather than having to spend a lot of time training and potentially getting themselves into trouble by doing what the Cirrus is good for before they're really ready to.

Great starting point.

I'm that guy (or at least close to it).

Rather than go straight into buying a Cirrus, I decided to go for the training and licensing in a rental plane. After a few months of that, it became clear to me that there were better options for my needs than a new Cirrus. It also became clear that what I REALLY want for my mission isn't suitable for a new pilot.

I'll likely end up buying my "forever plane" in 2-3 years, and meanwhile I'll use the Bonanza to develop my skills and build time.

I think that Cirrus has made a really good run, though, at finding the sweet spot of a plane that can be flown by a new pilot, while having enough capability to suit a fairly demanding mission profile.

 

[MauleSkinner]

In 135 ops those parameters are listed in their various manuals, eg., GOM, SMS, etc.


On the private, recreational GA side, you could track Part 91 ops limits in addition to aircraft limits or develop a tracking limit based on the top 3 causes for recreational aircraft accidents and incidents in general or by specific aircraft model. But usually what gets recorded initially in the existing systems are basic things like multiple course/altitude deviations over a set time frame, low fuel levels, low and slow flight maneuvers, non-training multiple go-arounds, etc. which become tell-tales to how the aircraft is being flown when combined with other data like weather conditions or aircraft location.

So again, in the context of the scenario presented and examples therein, who decides what constitutes mountainous terrain that needs specific training, and what that training looks like, and whether that training is or isn’t specific to category, class, STOL capability, or any number of other parameters?

And who can do the necessary training? When I bought my Maule, the instructor who met the insurance requirements (and insurance is, again, what we’re really talking about here) hadn’t flown tailwheel for about 3 years, and hadn’t flown a Maule for over 25. I checked myself out while he read the POH.

I had a customer who wanted me to give him some instruction in a couple of his tailwheel airplanes. The insurance company said I had to get a checkout from a particular instructor that I absolutely would not get into an airplane with, and also happened to be the instructor that was the reason the owner contacted me because he couldn’t teach the owner what he wanted/needed to know

Sending flight parameters to a manufacturer doesn’t necessarily demonstrate an instructor’s ability to teach an airplane or a particular operation, and therefore doesn’t have the ability to ensure proficiency in an operation that the pilot isn’t already doing. In those cases, it can run counter to learning and counter to safety.

 

[Bell206]

So again, in the context of the scenario presented and examples therein,

I was merely replying in context to the use of FOQA and similar programs and their effect on flight safety. Nothing more. But to expand on the who and what of training, etc. if an OEM wanted to develop a complete program, they could simply require those aircraft owners to follow all the requirements in Part 135 for relief on in-house insurance costs, unit cost, training, mx guidance, etc. Call it an OEM Discount AOC.

Part 135 would provide guidance to your questions, plus no one would have to develop anything new. It would cover all the necessary aspects to guide a Part 91 recreational owner/pilot to operate in a safer manner and give the OEM an existing foundation to monitor and “enforce.” And that guidance can be scaled to fit any OEM or specific aircraft just like it does for an actual 135 ops: Single, Basic, Standard. Additionally, there would be nothing illegal about applying the guidance only to Part 91 ops.

who decides what constitutes mountainous terrain that needs specific training, and what that training looks like,

Same process: existing FAA guidance. You could use the definitions in Part 95 or other docs to define those areas, then develop your training requirements based on other FAA or industry guidance. Bottomline all this would be voluntary to the people who wanted the reduced costs offered by an OEM. Unfortunately, without some sort of relief from the civil tort side for following the 135 guidance, I don’t know if it would be worth the entire effort?

 

[StraightnLevel]

Unfortunately, without some sort of relief from the civil tort side for following the 135 guidance, I don’t know if it would be worth the entire effort?

Precisely, and I don't see how you're ever going to convince a legislature to prevent a jury from finding liability in a trial situation. Like I asked above, has OnStar ever reduced the claims damages amounts for a driver in an equipped vehicle?

 

[hindsight2020]

I mean that's pretty much an rv6 or 6A or rv7..

inventory which is being handicapped by the gatekeepy 51% rule.....

 

[RyanShort1]

So I did. Wiki has this to say about it:

The company plans to build six to eight aircraft in 2019 and 24 during 2020, at its plant at South Texas Regional Airport in Hondo, Texas. The plant was officially opened in February 2019 and employs many ex-U.S. military aircraft maintenance personal to build the aircraft. Prices have not been announced, but sales are to start in July 2019.

So where is it now? Not even a price shown. This is the first time I've heard of it.

Edit: This is a shot from an AOPA page dated this year:

View attachment 134939

That doesn't look affordable.

They (Wiki) go on to say,

He [Paul Bertorelli] also noted the design's limited useful load, "at 836 pounds empty, the Colt has 484 pounds of useful load. That’s two 200-pounders and 14 gallons of gas. That’s fine for a training flight, but not so fine for cross- country flying where you might also wish to carry some baggage. So if you carry full fuel, the people better not weigh more than 300 pounds total."

So, the same old problem. A two-seater that has the same shortcomings of the old 150s, which were built to fit 1950's Americans who weighed about 3/4 of what some do now.

So, right now, the weight is limited by the LSA rules - 1320 lbs, which necessarily limits it to the weights you mentioned, however, I think that if MOSAIC goes through, it will likely get a weight increase. Every owner I've talked to loves them and they speak of them as a refined 150. There are three of them out in San Angelo at the school out there and they seem to be liked.

The future seems to be their Stallion offering: https://www.texasaircraft.com/post/stallion-the-future

 

[Cricket1]

If I ever want to get back in an RV, I will probably build. Nearly all that are being built these days are loaded with fuel injection, constant speed prop, dual electrical systems, multi-screen glass panels with fully redundant avionics, full-featured autopilot, high-end custom paint scheme, leather upholstery that leaves no metal uncovered between panel and aft bulkhead, it goes on and on. It’s not only extremely costly in dollars, but in weight as well. Many RVs are close to 100 pounds heavier than they really ought to be, and in a plane that small it makes a difference.

I’d build a -7 or -8 the way Van intended - light and simple. Maximize performance and fun, reduce costs. VFR panel, fixed pitch, basic electrical system, basic paint, no upholstery besides the seats, could reduce cost by $50K. How much more fun could you have by putting that fifty grand in the gas tanks?

From what I’ve seen, some (or more than some) of the RVers with the most hours in them have the simplest planes. They aren’t stunning show winners, but they fly the heck out of them. Fly it instead of staying in the hangar and petting it.

Much like the guys with the $50K+ custom motorcycles who put ten times the mileage on their trailer (which is parked just outside the town of where the latest generic stand-and-talk-but-never-ride rally is held), versus the guys with bone stock bikes that aren’t shiny anymore but ride 300+ days a year and go to another state for lunch.

Not really on topic, but I love your last paragraph about the custom motorcycles. Having been a sport touring motorcycle rider for many years, who did ride to other states for lunch. Most of the time what you describe are Harley owners. Sometimes teenagers with extended wheelbase "Busas, but mostly Harleys.

I used to love toying with them on the back roads. Me on a 20 year old Yamaha Maxim 700, worth about $2,000, eating up their +$20K chrome laden monsters. Any yeah, they "didn't care about performance" but that was only an excuse. Later on they are spending big $ on performance mods..... for a bike that weighs 800#'s and handles like the Queen Mary. To each his own and all that.

 

[Bell206]

Precisely, and I don't see how you're ever going to convince a legislature to prevent a jury from finding liability in a trial situation.

But you can also look at it from the other side. If you operate your aircraft at a higher level of safety via an OEM program like above, you will reduce the chances of participating in a tort action. Its definitely helped the commercial side of the industry. So maybe it would be worth the effort.

 

[MauleSkinner]

But you can also look at it from the other side. If you operate your aircraft at a higher level of safety via an OEM program like above, you will reduce the chances of participating in a tort action. Its definitely helped the commercial side of the industry. So maybe it would be worth the effort.

The problem is that the OEM program may require a higher level of training, it still doesn’t ensure operating at a higher level of safety. I see guys who pass checkrides every six months or year, but it takes 3 days of training to get up to standard on the things they don’t do in between, like emergencies or nonprecision approaches or missed approaches. It’s easy to look like you’re proficient when everything’s going right, but it’s far more difficult to be proficient when things go wrong.

 

[Bell206]

The problem is that the OEM program may require a higher level of training, it still doesn’t ensure operating at a higher level of safety.

Except in the big picture it does make a difference. Is any training system perfect? No. But the data supports higher training levels do reduce the number of incidents and accidents. Even simply following all the applicable Part 91 rules will reduce those events. Same on the maintenance side. So to use additional training and other requirements as a means to reduce the cost of aircraft ownership and insurance it would be a win/win for most people.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Except in the big picture it does make a difference. Is any training system perfect? No. But the data supports higher training levels do reduce the number of incidents and accidents. Even simply following all the applicable Part 91 rules will reduce those events. Same on the maintenance side. So to use additional training and other requirements as a means to reduce the cost of aircraft ownership and insurance it would be a win/win for most people.

True…without annual recurrent training, it would probably take 6 days to figure out how to fly a NPA.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It doesn’t necessarily take technology. You can self-debrief every flight. Make notes during the flight - when able, and use abbreviations to keep them short - and after securing the plane, sit down with yourself.

Which is a great thing to do, but it does not reduce your insurance rates or the liability on the manufacturer of your airplane.

So again, in the context of the scenario presented and examples therein, who decides what constitutes mountainous terrain that needs specific training, and what that training looks like, and whether that training is or isn’t specific to category, class, STOL capability, or any number of other parameters?

Mountainous terrain that needs training isn't particularly hard to figure out. If you're going to be within, say, 3,000 feet of the peaks within 10 miles, maybe expanded for higher winds aloft. Really, it should be a data driven decision based on prior accidents.

For "STOL capability" you could apply a Part 135 style rule where the performance of the airplane you're flying and the conditions you're in will allow you to be down and stopped, or up and off, within 60% of the available runway.

This isn't really hard stuff to figure out. Presumably the decision would have to be made by the manufacturer and their underwriter that they'd still (unfortunately) have to have.

And who can do the necessary training? When I bought my Maule, the instructor who met the insurance requirements (and insurance is, again, what we’re really talking about here) hadn’t flown tailwheel for about 3 years, and hadn’t flown a Maule for over 25. I checked myself out while he read the POH.

Again, not an insurmountable problem. Look at the CSIP program for example. The specialties would have to be done separately, but it shouldn't be hard to get good instructors on board with the program if they're going to have a guaranteed client base.

I had a customer who wanted me to give him some instruction in a couple of his tailwheel airplanes. The insurance company said I had to get a checkout from a particular instructor that I absolutely would not get into an airplane with, and also happened to be the instructor that was the reason the owner contacted me because he couldn’t teach the owner what he wanted/needed to know

Sounds like someone needs to have a conversation with said insurance company, or go elsewhere.

Sending flight parameters to a manufacturer doesn’t necessarily demonstrate an instructor’s ability to teach an airplane or a particular operation, and therefore doesn’t have the ability to ensure proficiency in an operation that the pilot isn’t already doing. In those cases, it can run counter to learning and counter to safety.

Sending flight parameters in doesn't do anything for the instructor, unless you note that the instructor is on board and instruction is taking place. In that case, it can easily be demonstrated that the required maneuvers took place within the required parameters which would hopefully absolve the instructor from some liability as well.

Precisely, and I don't see how you're ever going to convince a legislature to prevent a jury from finding liability in a trial situation. Like I asked above, has OnStar ever reduced the claims damages amounts for a driver in an equipped vehicle?

OnStar doesn't even try to make anyone a safer driver though. Some of the onboard systems are used in court cases and have surely gotten some manufacturers off the hook in some cases, but GM isn't requiring any particular training or driving habits and they're not providing any feedback to the drivers. The only purpose of OnStar is to extract money for GM - I had to have a particular OnStar subscription to use the remote start/lock/unlock via app on my last GM car for example, and the higher subscription levels come with the emergency assistance and various other services, but they are not at all trying to make their drivers safer.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Mountainous terrain that needs training isn't particularly hard to figure out. If you're going to be within, say, 3,000 feet of the peaks within 10 miles, maybe expanded for higher winds aloft. Really, it should be a data driven decision based on prior accidents.

So specifically not the Part 95 definition suggested previously?

For "STOL capability" you could apply a Part 135 style rule where the performance of the airplane you're flying and the conditions you're in will allow you to be down and stopped, or up and off, within 60% of the available runway.

Would you apply that rule the same way it applies under Part 135 (or 121) where it’s only a planning requirement, and doesn’t apply to the actual landing? Only to jets? And are you suggesting the book number be 60% or less of the runway and not actual pilot/airplane performance?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So specifically not the Part 95 definition suggested previously?

That only spells out lateral limits. It could be used, but IMO you don't need mountain training to transit across northern Alabama at 10,000 feet for example.

The thing with limitations is that they really need to be "right sized" or people will resist them, and rightfully so.

Would you apply that rule the same way it applies under Part 135 (or 121) where it’s only a planning requirement, and doesn’t apply to the actual landing? Only to jets? And are you suggesting the book number be 60% or less of the runway and not actual pilot/airplane performance?

Yes, book number. Takeoffs could use actual performance to some extent, maybe even have an abort warning, but with landings the actual performance depends on how hard you hit the brakes. Since I have to pay for brakes, I use them as little as possible. Landing at my home drome where my hangar is on the east end, if I land on the 5800+ foot runway 10 and they let me, I'll use solely aero braking and coast all the way to the end. Does the fact that I took up nearly the whole runway mean that my performance, or that of my plane, is substandard? No... So without some sort of additional sensing capability, it's not really possible nor advisable to use actual performance on landing *except* to the extent that you measure stabilized approach criteria and touchdown location. Total distance isn't an issue.

We're pretty far into the weeds now, but the only real issue is whether or not any of this would be truly effective in terms of removing financial risk from the manufacturer and allowing them to sell an airplane for less money.