The best general aviation article writen in decade

[GeorgePerry]

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=e1dc64fc-7ef7-4b5a-a23d-0a0f30d87061&

I wouldn't say I agree with "every" word, but the underlying principles cited in this editorial are timely, germane and scare me.

The government and its departments exist to serve the people.  When it comes to small aircraft operating under part 91, it is clear the FAA has become an impediment to progress.  As a result General Aviation (small, privately owned aircraft) is on its death bed.  I hope this trend doesn’t continue.  I want to maintain hope, but the pragmatist in me see’s GA’s days as numbered.  I wonder if when my son grows into a man, will there be an aircraft younger than he is to fly…

 

[scottfromiowa]

Great article George.  Interesting that the Today Show had the Mooney crash...where there were NO fatalities or serious injuries or property damage (beyond plane) this morning...comments were "It's a miracle that no-one was killed"...sigh.  I wonder how many auto accidents occured in the same 48 hours (weekend) in California?  The media LOVES to promote general aviation as 1. Inherantly dangerous 2. For the rich

We're beyond the tipping point.  General Aviation continues to lose (older) pilots faster than new can be minted.  Entry price is just too high.  GA is dying.  Fuel costs, Insurance (liability), and government mandates (annual/equipment certification) are the direct causes...and more legislation (next gen, elimination of lead, user fees) just tighten the noose more.  To depressing for words...

There are a LOT of certified aircraft that are under utilized.  The value of these aircraft would go up tremendously with with the article proposes...with the increased use mechanics, fuel suppliers, avionics shops/mfers would ALL benefit and thrive.

Even the media would benefit as they would have more stories of planes falling from the sky to blather about on perhaps a daily basis...like car crashes.

[KSMooniac]

The author is a bit off-base, IMO, as an engineer that works in the industry.  He exaggerates the costs of certification to try to make his point, and says that the FAA isn't stopping bad engineering, but that is exactly what they do in many cases!  I've seen the kit industry from the inside, and trust me, it is a *good* thing that we have certification standards for our aircraft!  There are a LOT of kooks in the industry, and they put products of questionable safety.  Cirrus Design is near the top of that list...their VK-30 kitplane was under-engineered and not a safe plane, while their SR-20/22 is a pretty decent plane after going thru the Part 23 cert process.  Ditto for Lancair/Columbia.

That aside, yes, the process is cumbersome and in many instances the standards could be loosened without making planes fall out of the sky.  Operationally, it would be great to allow more owner-maintenance for non-commercial operations.  

The biggest enemy to our industry is the runaway tort problem that infiltrates every product, service and action in the industry, and that is the true reason we're paying the high prices for everything in aviation.  If we could have gotten that under control in the 80s, we would likely still be enjoying a robust GA environment.  

[Hank]

Wow, I'd love to read the article. But after five minutes of "please wait for our tweets to load" without any of the text itself appearing, I gave up. Tried again later, same results. Tried the "FAQ" option on the left--nothing while I wait for their tweets to load. On a T1 here at work . . . Nothing comes up on their site for me, not even "Search" until after the tweets load, and they won't. So most unfortunately, not only can I not do anything on aero-net's website, I can't even communicate my problem to them . . .

Any chance someone could paste the article here?

[KSMooniac]

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.

Therefore; this editorial is meant to evoke thought and discussion for all that want GA to grow and be what it was always meant to be. Throughout this editorial; I will draw comparisons to other private transportation modes, mostly automobiles.

Why do we have one that is highly regulated and the other only lightly regulated?

First let's run through some background for our discussion. Piston engine aircraft -- new sales -- have been declining for years. This year GAMA is reporting that only 634 piston aircraft were sold worldwide. If that trend continues; there cannot be a viable ecosystem for us to use. There has not been a NEW piston airframe certified by the FAA since the Cirrus SR20 and Diamond DA-42 in 1999. That is over adecade ago. The cost of new aircraft has significantly exceeded inflation since 1970 and grown exponentially in the last 30 years.
 
Aircraft manufacturers and parts suppliers, when asked why aren't they designing new products, cite their number one reason as the cost to get them "Certified." Some have said it would cost upwards of $150 to $200 Million to do the FAA part (for a new aircraft design). This is over and above their own design and engineering costs. All of us have to pay for that effort as the chart above clearly shows. When you ask a manufacturer why they have not improved their product; they cite the time and cost for FAA certification. Many say there is no way to predict how the FAA will review their product and when they will complete their "Certification". This introduces unknowns and uncertainty to the process. In addition to the acquisition cost; there is the operations and maintenance cost of owning a Part 23 aircraft. Annual inspections and having to use "Certified" parts being two that drive up cost significantly. The next being fuel cost since the specialized fuel is not used/made in large economic(al) quantities.

What do we get for this unique government oversight of our Private mode of transportation? One that does not exist for automobiles or boats. This oversight has not been always around. It started in 1934. The Part 23 oversight has been reviewed a few times by the FAA. The last review was conducted in 2008/2009 and before that, in 1984.

 

You can read the full report here. 

This comprehensive study had participants from the associations that represent us; AOPA and EAA. They were chartered to do a complete review of the process and could offer any recommendations or changes that they felt were necessary to support General Aviation for the next 20 years. From my review of their report; none of their recommendations will address the pain that the FAA is causing and which the report and chart above (from their own report) highlighted. The recommendations were about reclassifying the way the aircraft and rules apply, but not the rules and costly process themselves.

So why do we have this massive government oversight and what is it BUYING for us? The first reason I have heard is that it is because planes cross state borders and we don't want 50 states trying to regulate aircraft. Ok, but so do cars and boats. The biggest one I have seen, is that we must have this government regulation because we must protect the public and citizens. Ok, if that were true then we should have massively more oversight and regulations for automobiles. There were 30,797 fatal accidents in 2009 in Automobiles, killing 33,808 persons of which 4,872 were non-occupants or innocent by-standers. There were 2,217,000 injuries. The economic cost of traffic crashes was reported as $230.6 Billon. The 2009 NALL report from AOPA lists 1271 accidents, of which 241 were fatal, for non-commercial fixed wing aircraft. Of those, only 178 were attributed to Mechanical/Maintenance -- of which only 18 were fatal. This includes amateur built and LSA, as well. Some like to say that certified aircraft are safer than amateur built, but interestingly there were only 49 A-B accidents attributed to mechanical issues with only 7 deaths. I could not find data for 2009 on how many non-flying persons were injured by GA aircraft, but in 2005; there were 4 fatalities and 17 injuries, so it is not like GA is a menace to the public. Autos kill far more innocent bystanders. So, if the government were trying to provide the MOST good for its citizens; then there should be more government oversight of automobiles than GA airplanes.

Ok, so if the FAA study did not do a true analysis of their role in the GA certification process; what would you think if we did? Given the background and facts above; do we really need a huge bureaucracy to regulate this small number of planes? Remember, there are only 300,000 registered GA aircraft and about 624,000 active pilots. There are probably less than 10,000 aircraft flying each day. I, for one, would much rather the FAA devote its limited manpower and budget to moving to NEXTGEN and insuring that the National Airspace System is working optimally.

So here is my recommendation for the NEW Part 23 process. I recommend it be no different than automobiles. They move the same people. One is working -- with new innovation and cost reductions --and one is dying. I am ok with the government specifying limited criteria, and safety items, similar to what they do for cars. Just as an example; did you know that the seat fabric standard for automobiles was higher than for planes? The FAA could do a very limited testing of new models of aircraft similar to what the NHSA does for crash test of automobiles. There would not be a TYPE CERTIFICATE and PRODUCTION CERTIFICATE process, and parts and components would not have to be certified. It should be limited to validating the manufactures claims on flight envelope, safety, and compliance with the new significantly reduced regulation that mirrors what exists for automobiles. I further propose that we let the free market drive the design and innovation of planes -- just like we do for cars. This would apply to Part 91 -- only. I also recommend that we do away with the "Annual" and just have a safety inspection like we have for cars. All other maintenance is up to the owner's desires -- based on the recommendations from the manufacturer. Again, just like you have on cars, there would be no requirement to have an FAA certified/licensed mechanic maintain your plane. We have seen that aircraft maintenance is not significantly better than automobile maintenance.

I know this sounds radical. Any major change is. What do I think would happen? There would be a significant resurgence in demand. As volume and market forces start to work; costs would come down drastically. New products, engines, avionics, etc., would come to market. Choices for the consumer/pilot would increase and the free market would drive (GA) where new products happen. On the safety side; there may be more accidents, but more so because there would be many new pilots. The normal pilot errors not attributed to mechanical/maintenance would still exist, but that is where the FAA could focus their efforts and have the biggest impact. There would be some design/mechanical accidents and deaths. Here, the market will work. Others will not buy those products, remember the Pinto and Corvair? The FAA could do what NHSA does and order recalls of design faults. Here, an improvement would be that the manufacturer would have to pay to have it fixed unlike the current AD process. But it is my honest belief that the number of accidents would not grow significantly for mechanical issues because the FAA is not weeding out that much BAD design/engineering today. It is just driving up the cost of it, and there is actually a case to be made that they are slowing or even stopping design improvements in products -- because of certification cost which is having a bad safety effect. Look at our engines; they are 1930s technology with very few improvements. Not because there are no known improvements, but because of cost.

So in conclusion; this is another clear example of how government, trying to help and provide a service to its citizens, is actually killing what it is regulating. Remember that Congress removed the requirement for the FAA to have to encourage and develop civil aviation from its mission in 2009. I have not found any cost/benefit studies on the Part 23 topic. I wish that some other outside the government group would do a thorough analysis. What true benefits are we getting from this oversight and more importantly what is it costing us in $, innovation, and market?

Since man started to fly; there has been a dream that everyone would be able to fly. There was the same dream for automobiles when they were created. One has occurred, for the most part, in the US.

One has not.

The difference is government oversight. Let's try an experiment of freeing up the people and see what happens. Now is the perfect time to do this. Our President has directed that all government regulations be reviewed for what is impacting business, killing jobs and innovation. This is the perfect time to have the Part 23 regulations rescinded and I bet that our OEMs (and even new ones) will come back to the market and start hiring and doing incredible things. We still need to relook at the Part 91 and Part 61 FARs but that will be for another editorial. What can you do; tell the associations they need to develop a Policy plan for how to rescind Part 23 and replace it with a system similar to automobiles. Then we can go to Congress enmasse and make our case. Since we are not the ones killing innocent people, and our deaths are less than automobiles; it should be clear that this is an area we can reduce government intervention.

It is a start -- and there is more to do, I know. Just imagine what GA would look like if we had real growth and more citizens using it. We would have more GA airports. We would have more companies providing services. It is possible; we just need to demand that our government get out of our lives where they are not adding real value. We need to do this before it is too late and GA dies away completely.

[Jeff_S]

No one has mentioned it, but this is essentially what the LSA program was all about. I haven't done a thorough study of the accident statistics and causes, but I do recall seeing something in the NALL report that the LSA safety record was showing some concern. And yet, part of the reason is likely the increase in pilot activity in this segment, as was mentioned in the above article. And there's no denying the growth in innovation in this area.

[N601RX]

The LSA certification could be extended to 4 place planes with new speed limits and weight limits.  They could even require a PPL and medical for the 4 place planes.

Another good option would be to provide a mechanism for expermintal aircraft and equipment to become certified after it had proven itself in the field by having a certain number of planes or accessories flying for a certain number of years with an accident or failure rate below a certain level. I personally would perfer a aircraft or accessory that had a proven field record over a new piece of equipment that had been through some BS certification "Process". 

[Geoff]

February 2011 Volume 54 / Number 2

License to Learn

The limited flight instructor certificate

By Rod Machado

A Polish immigrant visited his local flight surgeon to take a third class medical exam. The doctor had him stand in a specific spot, then pulled down a chart showing the letters: CVOKPTNXZYKV. The doc said to the Polish immigrant, “OK, can you read that?” The Polish immigrant replied, “Read it? Heck, I know the guy.” Sometimes what you look at is not what you see.

That happens to me when I look at a private pilot, because I don’t see just a private pilot. I see someone who, with more experience and the proper training, could easily be a capable flight instructor. And this person wouldn’t need an instrument rating or a commercial certificate to instruct, either. You’re no doubt thinking, “Rod’s wheel is spinning, but his hamster is dead.” Well, before you get too comfy with that judgment, let me try and convince you that my position isn’t all that radical, and why it would be something that could help rejuvenate aviation.

On August 23, 1956, the FAA began offering something known as a limited flight instructor certificate (LFIC) to noninstrument-rated private pilots. An applicant for the LFIC needed a minimum of 200 hours total time, needed to meet commercial pilot skill standards, had to demonstrate the ability to teach the appropriate maneuvers in the category of aircraft in which he or she wished to instruct, and had to demonstrate that students could fly safely under his or her supervision. If the LFI held the certificate for at least one year and trained five pilot applicants successfully, he or she could convert the LFIC to a permanent certified flight instructor certificate (CFI). The LFIC disappeared as a certificate option on May 24, 1962.

If you think that the FAA eliminated the LFIC because it finally came to its senses, think again. The FAA intended the LFIC to be nothing more than a means of evaluating the competency of those who might eventually apply for a CFIC. The LFIC was eliminated when the FAA became satisfied that its examiners could successfully assess a CFI candidate’s competence directly. It’s important to keep in mind that the LFIC wasn’t eliminated because LFIs produced less qualified students, either.

If you’re thinking that the LFIC could only have existed in the 1950s and 1960s, but would have no place in today’s complex airspace environment, I have a surprise for you. It turns out that we now have something similar to the LFIC. I’m speaking of the sport pilot flight instructor certificate (SFIC), whose minimum requirements are a sport pilot certificate and 150 hours of flight time. The instructor applicant must simply demonstrate his or her ability to teach to the standards set forth in the Sport Pilot Practical Test Standards to obtain the SFIC.

Clearly, the SFIC indicates the FAA’s belief that properly trained sport pilots are capable of teaching others to fly competently and safely in light sport aircraft. Back in 1956, the FAA also believed the same thing about properly trained private pilots who became LFIs. If we keep in mind that the FAA didn’t eliminate the LFIC because of poor instructor performance, then we can reasonably conclude that properly trained 200-hour, noninstrument-rated private pilots can competently and safely prepare students for the private pilot certificate. That’s why I’m suggesting that the FAA consider reinitiating the LFIC. Yes, the LFIC should come with many restrictions, but that’s a discussion for another time.

The question you’re probably asking is, “What’s the payoff for reviving the LFIC?” I was hoping you’d ask. Over the years I’ve met many private pilots who wanted to teach their friends and family members to fly, but who had no need or desire to undergo the same training required by those pursing a professional pilot career (i.e., the instrument rating and commercial certificate). The LFIC benefits aviation by allowing it to inherit an entirely new class of enthusiastic teachers whose main ambition is to share their love of flying with others and not just to build flight time. As a result, we’re also likely to add an older, and by definition wise, class of aviation ambassadors to our instructor ranks. Can you think of anything that more directly supports the flight training industry? I can’t.

The objections? Given the information I presented, there certainly is no basis on which one can argue that LFIs produce less qualified students. One might argue that today’s aviation knowledge is too complex for private pilots to adequately teach. But that doesn’t explain how sport pilot instructors—those who may start out with 50 hours less flight time than an LFI—are permitted to teach nearly all the same knowledge that private pilots are required to learn. The only other objection is that LFIs would deprive the CFI of his or her share of students. If one believes that flight training is a zero-sum game, that might be a valid concern. I believe that reviving the LFIC would actually attract those who might not otherwise have an interest in or find access to flight training, as well as help retain those who quit training because of poor instructor performance.

I’ve sung nothing but praise for the FAA in developing the sport pilot instructor program. Now I hope they’ll also see the limited flight instructor certificate as a viable option for those who simply want to teach, and not fly as professional pilots. The evidence to date suggests that this can only help aviation, and certainly not diminish it.

Aviation writer and professional speaker Rod Machado has been flying since 1970. Visit the author’s blog.

[DaV8or]

Read about half of the article, but when he started to make comparisons to automobiles, he lost me. First guy to compare planes to cars in an argument loses in my book. No comparison in any way except they both move people and use gasoline.

[sleepingsquirrel]

 

My flying essentially stopped when the bi annual flight review came into being. I was in the Navy , single, had disposable income and spending it in aviation. One of my friends obtained his CFI at the same Cessna flight center where I was flying. I wanted him to do my review, it would have been his first endorsement . The FBO told me in order to rent their aircraft one of their instructors would have to sign my bi annual. I saw no good reasons that this should be the case. Perhaps niavely I hired the new CFI for my review and found that I could no longer easily get into the air by renting. Fortunately , I had access to other aircraft and managed to keep my PPL skills alive but on life support. (I didn't need to log PIC to maintain skills, I wasn't actively pursuing ratings). Others were forced to the letter of the law to maintain skills. I developed a strong dislike for this government intervention in a passion of my young life. From my point of view the very thing created to insure my proficiency created a need for itself when for all intent and purpose I quit flying as regularly. 

  As you all know nearly 40 years later I'm back and pleased to have found not one but two great aircraft in our stagnant economy. I'm flying for fun and $5 /gallon fuel crawls right up my spine. I see young men working just as I did on the flight line, pumping fuel , and spending their hard earned money to pursue their passion. So I buy the fuel instead of slogging my own. When I worked at this airport in the late 60s and early 70s the ramp was full the hangars were full . There was flight training, charters, rentals and fuel sales. Full staffing to support the activity. I feel badly for those trying to keep a dying GA infrastructure alive . I'm sure my annuals will give me another eye opening experience but I have steeled my spine with the fuel prices and will be ready. I particularly respond to one fellows signature line "pound it ,paint it, #*!%< it'll fly" and another "it flew in it will fly out" . I learned under my Uncles wing how to fly without spending a lot of money needlessly. He was flying auto fuel in 1952 . As one of my cousins proclaimed to him "you can't do that, that's STRICTLY PROHIBITED!" He calmly continued to fly auto fuel right up to the point that it was found no longer necessary to keep the burning of auto fuel "STRICTLY PROHIBITED". I got a lot more flight time than my cousin, by the way, for keeping my mouth shut and learning from a man ahead of his time, yet firmly rooted in aviations past.

 I'm going to get a lot more flight time. Ever seen an EXPERIMENTAL Mooney, an EXPERIMENAL Cessna?  There may have to be a lot more of them.  This forum has great passion and zest for General Aviation. General Aviation is the birth Mother of all Modern Aviation which has grown into sophmoric adolesence. She will still be there when the adolesent  fool comes to his senses, as long as people who love to fly exist. I have a five year old grand daughter she has already seen the "mysterious beyond"!

 

 

[sleepingsquirrel]

Hi Jim,

 My mistake, He started in Ercoupes, in 1952 . I was born in 1952 and didn't start flying with him until later. Straight tail Cessna was my first ride. Sorry you smelled a rat, sure it wasn't a squirrel?

Thank you for reading my opinion and experience so closely though , I hope this mistake does not detract from the intended discussion that all of have something at stake in aviation, and that it does not have to die because our government has the power to regulate it to death.

I will strike the Cessna model # "172" from that sentence for the sake of accuracy since he never had the ability to time travel in a 172 like I do in a Mooney.

[DaV8or]

Quote: sleepingsquirrel

 Ever seen an EXPERIMENTAL Mooney, an EXPERIMENAL Cessna?  There may have to be a lot more of them.  

[Urs_Wildermuth]

Dave,

that would maybe work in the US but NOT elsewhere. Experimentals are one way to overcome the certification dilemma and bring aviation into the 21st century in many cases, but Europe for a start limits Experimentals to VFR. No IFR at all allowed. What good does that do? If you have the c of a's expire after 20 years, it would give authorities the basis of grounding and scrapping those airplanes! They are expired, like the pint of milk from the 7-11, so it must be destroyed. That is how they would think.

So that is why we have the absurd situation that experimentals are equipped with avionics and other things which do make an A380 flight deck look outdated, yet to even upgrade one of our Mooneys to a partial glass panel like the Aspen, you need (Europe) a certification process which may well exceed the value of the whole purchase plus installation.

Frankly, I think there is method to this madness,at least in Europe. The goal is to eliminate GA as a stepping stone to eliminate all forms of personal transport. While in the US the motives behind the sometimes extreme criteria are different, many of them there because nobody has the balls to do away with them, everybody is scared of class action lawsuits and product liability claims to the extent that you can't get anything new certified because someone might break it and then get a billion $$$ for his stupidity.

The editor of one flying mag in Germany observed very correctly while on a trip to Asia that the degree in which a society allows GA is directly proportinonal to the state of democracy. There is no or very few GA to a limited circle of folks in dictatorships. So we have to ask ourselfs what the real agenda of those who constantly fight us is. It's not a pretty thought, but looking at what is happening, especcially in Europe, one can not help but wonder.

[sleepingsquirrel]

How about instead of de certification,just a change of certification option at some point in time. Different aircraft could have different times based on their quality ,reliability,durability. An owner could opt to continue under the existing structure, protecting his investment with his original certificate of airworthiness. Others could go another route with understanding that recertification  would require manufacturers hands on inspection and correction of any changes made during operation and maintenance under another catagory? This could allow some aircraft to gracefully fly on as long as capable owner operator/maintainers cared to meet the reduced regulations . It would economically allow the exceptionally maintained aircraft to re-enter the structured certification program at the hands of the original manufacturers.  The less than exceptionally maintained aircraft would meet a manufacturers pricing structure based on their state of condition to return to its original factory airworthiness certification. Yes the less than exceptionally maintained aircraft could be the bridge to the manufacturers new/recertified planes as a core exchange.

One could have a 50 year old Mooney worth $65,000 or one could have a 50 year old Mooney worth $30,000. both would be airworthy and subject to safety standards. The market would ultimately decide which airplane was safest and held most value.

Some of us could fly high and fast in style ,some of us could fly our pocket books but somewhere in this maybe more people could fly, more people could work on planes and the bureaucrats should love a parallel system to maintain!

[DaV8or]

Quote: Urs_Wildermuth

Dave,

that would maybe work in the US but NOT elsewhere. Experimentals are one way to overcome the certification dilemma and bring aviation into the 21st century in many cases, but Europe for a start limits Experimentals to VFR. No IFR at all allowed. What good does that do? If you have the c of a's expire after 20 years, it would give authorities the basis of grounding and scrapping those airplanes! They are expired, like the pint of milk from the 7-11, so it must be destroyed. That is how they would think.

[Tom]

I commented on the 'end of GA' idea in a previous thread:

http://www.mooneyspace.com/index.cfm?page=3&mainaction=posts&forumid=1&threadid=1350

Medical Joke: Why do they put nails in the coffin?
Answer:  So that the oncologist can't push 'just one more dose' of chemo.

GA is drowning yet some of think that we need to better describe the water.  Regardless of the validity of the benefits of GA airports to the general public, the vast majority of the public can't afford to fly GA and public funding will get cut. User fees are unavoidable.  We need to allow "decertification" (or whatever you want to call it) to much of the older GA fleet.  We need to do this yesterday.  In the past AOPA has agreed to this but I don't see it near the headlines.

BS litigation didn't help GA.  But neither did increase fuel costs in the 70s.  Nowadays we are definiting economic growth in terms of our ability to re-inflate a bubble.  Bottom line, many factors have got us into this dive.  We might not be able to pull out.  But we need another useless AD or "engineering epiphany" like we need another hole in the head.

[sleepingsquirrel]

I think the general public is/has been flying for years in the airline industry. I suspect subsidized as well. However that may  be losing its luster. I vowed I will never ,ever pay to be treated like a criminal. Are more people flying commercial now or are the seats full because of scheduling? Is the AOPA a viable voice? How about the EAA? Should I join both if they are helpful? Most people don't know or care where their pilot learned to fly , or why he flies. Since the cockpit doors are now sealed , I hear there may just be technology running the show. I'm sure some commercial fliers have considered and moved back to their own pilots and planes for their own reasons.

[MooneyMitch]

Below is a link to a recent ariticle by Jamie Beckett from the GA online Newsletter.  In it Jamie describes the value of GA to the citizens of Polk County.  Jamie feels his presentation to a non-aviation group of folks was very successful. 

Jamie's efforts are truly positive and are definately an example of how to promote GA.  GA is alive and can certainly stay that way if we make it so. 

If you have a moment, please read his article. 

I think we'll make Jamie an honarary Mooney Ambassador!

http://www.generalaviationnews.com/2011/02/07/counting-our-blessings-%e2%80%94-out-loud/?utm_source=The+Pulse+Subscribers&utm_campaign=9a3d79f0f7-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email

[scottfromiowa]

I am glad that the presentation was a success.  He likely impacted/educated (at a local level) some key decision makers and leaders to the benefits of a vital GA community that is worthy of continued support.

I stand by my previous statements.  GA is expensive (recent article talked about how you don't see plumbers and teachers hanging around the airport anymore) and HIGHLY regulated.  I LOVE to fly and I LOVE to own and improve my Mooney...B.U.T-I am a realist.  My co-pilot panel re-do cost THOUSANDS and I had to make significant sacrifices to get it done....on the heels of a $2,600 annual.  Future of AVGAS?  I just look at what's going on at the pump (personal vehicles) and in Egypt and gulp...We are heading for double digit fuel prices, like Europe.  My LOVE is starting to become "qualified".  My support and involvement in GA is a luxury...NOT a necessity.

AOPA is my "representative" to communicate the "woes" of ever increasing costs to operate.  We NEED some serious tax incentives to FIND, PROMOTE and MARKET an aviation NO Lead alternative.  We NEED to reduce the liability exposure to manufactures of ALL things used in aviation.  We need to reduce the requirements for "annuals" in certified airframes that are NOT used to transport for $.  How about every two years?  If the plane is flying it is going to receive necessary service based on what pilot identifies.

Until the $ comes down all the planes sitting will NOT be flying regularly and new pilots will NOT be attracted...except those that are affluent...in numbers that will be high enough to make GA thrive again...Sport Aviation is great, but those that learn by dinking around locally will ultimately want to begin going cross country.  The Mooney and other "certified" aircraft are the tools for this, but NOT without costs and regulatory burden of future costs stabilizing and going the OTHER way.

[MooneyMitch]

Good Scott, keep talking, write your reps, both Fed and State and let them know these things.  Let's not sit back and watch it go down!  Your assesments hold lots of validity, no doubt.   Let's not sit back and watch it go down!

By the way, a fellow Mooney owner/pilot just a couple of doors away from me is a plumber.  Another is a heating and airconditioning contractor, so they are still at the airport flying planes. 

 

[scottfromiowa]

I am a PERFECT exception to the current perception of Aviation is for the RICH...I know there are exeptions.  I am active and have particpated in last six months in an AOPA gathering with Senator Grassley in Iowa.  AOPA does NOT talk liability or "change" regarding certification requirements or the active need to control costs to GA with "Next Gen".  The mantra on AVGAS is...don't worry...leaded AVGAS is here for near future...we've got ya covered...Bull$#@%!  GA fuel suppliers need an incentive to make aviation fuel alternatives and absorb costs of certification.  IMO.

I'm not an activist.  I'm a pilot that pays an organization to be MY activist.  I'm NOT feeling the love from anyone regarding GA.  Now if you want to talk Green Bay Packers...my opinions and outlook are much more positive.

Signed: Hanging on by a thread (and the body blows keep on coming) in Iowa.

[Urs_Wildermuth]

Quote: DaV8or

[MooneyMitch]

Hello Urs.

Thank you for your input.  We all have to fight for GA here in the USA as well as you all in Europe.  We met a young couple from Switzerland at our Oceano Airport last Sat.  The fellow is currently working in the San Francisco area.   He and his girlfriend, visiting from Swizterland, were traveling by auto down the coast of California over the weekend and made a stop at our CA beach airport.

They both love aviation.  He is considering learning to fly while here in the US.  Both of them were very surprised that a pilot could take off from Oceano airport and fly across our country without speaking to anyone nor having to ask anyones permission to do so. 

This in itself, is worth fighting for. 

[scottfromiowa]

Why do we have to fight for it Mitch?  Why is GA under attack?  Why is individual freedom under attack?  I know the answers (IMO), but not going to be the broken record any more.

[MooneyMitch]

On your side.  "Squeaky wheel gets the grease"   Keep spinning that record.  Never give up!