Guest Editorial: The Death of General Aviation?

[Jaybird180]

Is It Time To Overhaul (Or Even Eliminate) FAA Certification of GA?

By John Ylinen, Private Pilot

If you are reading this column in Aero-News; then you are probably an aviation enthusiast -- and most likely a pilot. If you became a pilot since the 1970s; you have been witnessing the slow death of General Aviation. For the purposes of this editorial; I will confine my discussion to Private aviation, small plane and privately owned. Not corporate jets or other such commercial endeavors. Commonly called/flown under Part 91.


I recently read an editorial in Flying Magazine by Editor in Chief Robert Goyer titled "Why Certification Matters." In it he expounds that we are all better off because the FAA certifies our planes under Part 23. He said that we needed the government to closely oversee the design, building, and maintenance of our Part 23 aircraft throughout their life. If they didn't; his point was that we would be letting our aircraft become unsafe and not sure (of) what we were buying or flying. This editorial got me thinking, along with my deep concern that we might not be able to fly for much longer, if the current trend in GA continues. After much thought; I strongly disagree with Mr. Goyer.

(link to rest of article)
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav...1dc64fc-7ef7-4b5a-a23d-0a0f30d87061&Dynamic=1

 

[Jim Logajan]

The ASTM process for the certification of LSAs shows the shortcomings of leaving the standards to industry to figure out. We already had one where the wings fall off and a couple with really squirrely handling characteristics.

I don't think the de Haviland Comet is an LSA. :wink2: (Side note: I think it is more accurate to say the fuselage "falls off," not the wings on any airplane in flight.)

The FAA has a vast list of ADs that proves that certification doesn't insure perfect design the first time, so taking a handful of failures of one design as indicating the ASTM process has any special shortcomings is, in my humble opinion, grossly erroneous special pleading.

 

[Jim Logajan]

So you have to go back to the 50s, a different continent and a then new technology to find a failure of certification.

Looks like somebody already got into an argument on this subject and put together some lists on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_of_structural_integrity_on_an_aircraft
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:In-flight_airliner_structural_failures

For many of the other designs from little shops in the czech republic I am supposed to take their word that it 'conforms to the ASTM standard':wink2:......

Didn't those outfits emerge from some that used to design and build aircraft for the Soviet Union? :wink2:

 

[Jim Logajan]

The parts alone cost $150k. Same as a similarly equipped RV-10.

Just went to Van's online cost estimator to check - part cost for a simply equipped VFR equipped RV-10 is in the $110k range. About half that is engine, FWF, and prop. That the rest of the airplane kit costs around $55k is quite interesting, considering that you can buy a much more massive and complex device (in completed and painted form) in the form of a 4WD SUV. Guess that says either a lot about the efficiency of automobile industry and its access to raw materials, or the inefficiency of the aviation industry. Or something else?