Regulation apparently adds at least $2000 to the price of a Dynon panel

[PeterNSteinmetz]

It seems that regulation adds at least $2000 to the cost of a Dynon panel because the STC is $2000 while the equipment price is the same.

And there must be something else in there other than the cost of photocopying the certificate.

 

[Bob Noel]

price the customer will accept.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

True it is what the market will bear. But that is because of something related to the regulation. Otherwise people would just go with a seller that could match the lower price.

 

[rotorwrench]

It seems that regulation adds at least $2000 to the cost of a Dynon panel because the STC is $2000 while the equipment price is the same.

Not at all. Dynon sets the price of the STC. There are plenty of examples out there of free STC documentation.

And there must be something else in there other than the cost of photocopying the certificate.

Sure… good old fashion profit.

Otherwise people would just go with a seller that could match the lower price.

Or simply buy the equipment and obtain your own approval?

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Not at all.

I think this falls under that non-falsifiable belief about regulation not raising prices and impeding innovation. So won’t comment further than that.

 

[Winthrop]

So my brain is decidedly mechanical and I can't understand most analogue technology, let alone digital machines. I did know an aviatrix who decided to rely on her iPad with fairly dire results and could see some value in regulation that dictates basic operating parameters for equipment on aircraft. However, from my perspective as a lawyer, the vast majority of regulation does nothing to further safety, but rather entrenches the interests of some lobbyist's clients. A such I am skeptical, but would like to better understand what the technology claims to do and what the regulation purports to protect from.

 

[Bob Noel]

I think this falls under that non-falsifiable belief about regulation not raising prices and impeding innovation. So won’t comment further than that.

kind of like your non-falsifiable belief that regulation must cause higher prices.

Years ago there was a NASA/FAA investigation into software certification costs (Streamlining Software Aspects of Certification). People running it soon realized that companies that knew how to get "178B certification" efficiently weren't going to tell other companies how. There were a lot of people not familar with DO-178B that had this view that getting "178B certification" would increase software costs by an order of magnitude. But there were companies that knew how to do it without causing massive cost and schedule problems.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

kind of like your non-falsifiable belief that regulation must cause higher prices.

Not at all @Bob Noel . My beliefs about this are completely falsifiable. I can think of lots of evidence and analysis that would persuade me that belief is false.

By contrast, I have not heard mention of any evidence or analysis, which could exist in principle, which would falsify the claim that regulation does not cause an increase in prices (and I have asked in the V8 thread and received no answer). That means that belief is non-falsifiable for the person who can’t name some. And there really is little point in discussing such beliefs to determine the truth - since by definition they can never be falsified. I am discussing it further with you here because I always assume people are rational and their beliefs falsifiable until demonstrated otherwise.

Frankly it strikes me that the fact that the same equipment (literally) costs $2000 more for a certified version is a rather powerful argument that exactly that happens.

When I think about it more, I think there is also a good intuitive argument that the price of compliance being zero (or even not statistically significantly different from zero) is extremely unlikely. Consider the work that has to go into assuring compliance. The testing and paperwork at a minimum, if not design changes. It seems extremely unlikely that those cost nothing.

Years ago there was a NASA/FAA investigation into software certification costs (Streamlining Software Aspects of Certification). People running it soon realized that companies that knew how to get "178B certification" efficiently weren't going to tell other companies how. There were a lot of people not familar with DO-178B that had this view that getting "178B certification" would increase software costs by an order of magnitude. But there were companies that knew how to do it without causing massive cost and schedule problems.

That’s a good datapoint and certainly shows that compliance can be done more cheaply and efficiently. But that isn’t really evidence that the cost is zero.

I think our best estimate, based on this data point, would be that for products which are primarily software, the cost of compliance is about 13% of the total.

 

[rotorwrench]

However, from my perspective as a lawyer, the vast majority of regulation does nothing to further safety, but rather entrenches the interests of some lobbyist's clients.

You’ll find the FARs have less to do with safety and more to do with management of the federal aviation system and the compliance with international agreements.

As to lobbyists, I’ve seen them more on the statute/policy side which doesn’t always make it down to the regulatory side. While there have been a few special interest pushes at the regulatory level like the Cessna 206 ALS revision approval and the recent Moss LOI interpretation, those usually get squashed by other departments.

A such I am skeptical, but would like to better understand what the technology claims to do and what the regulation purports to protect from.

Perhaps post a questionable aviation example and we can hash out the regulatory effects?