The frustrating economics of aviation

In article , Philip Sondericker wrote:
Well, how about it? Anyone willing to submit some actual hard data?

Is there a legal equivalent of the NTSB database we can search? Without
that, it's essentially impossible to do - but there are some fairly well
published ones, such as the Jessica Dubroff case (entirely the fault of
the instructor, but Cessna got named in the suit nonetheless), at least
one where the pilot ran the plane out of fuel and the manufacturer got
sued, and one against Cessna when a newly-qualified (teenage) private
pilot decided to buzz his family home and crashed in the process.

'Frivolous', IMHO, includes any case where the manufacturer sues when
the aircraft's commander was grossly negligent - such as running out of
fuel when there's no fuel leak or similar fault, or when the commander
breaks the regulations to do buzzjobs, or where the pilot takes off into
the face of approaching thunderstorms at high altitude airports.
The trouble is the COST of defending these lawsuits where the pilot was
entirely at fault, even if the manufacturer eventually wins, is
hurting the industry.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

Here's an interesting web page, written by an aviation lawyer, where he
discusses the issue of frivolous lawsuits and product liability.

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/avprodliab.html

"James Robinson" wrote in message
...
Here's an interesting web page, written by an aviation lawyer, where he
discusses the issue of frivolous lawsuits and product liability.

http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/avprodliab.html


Yes, and he goes on to explore the homebuilt liability issues as well:
http://www.aviationlawcorp.com/content/liabhomeblt.html

Dylan Smith wrote:

The trouble is the COST of defending these lawsuits where the pilot was
entirely at fault, even if the manufacturer eventually wins, is
hurting the industry.

A couple of quotes from a web site on liability:

- Since 1978, the industry suffered a 95 percent unit sales decline and
the loss of 100,000 jobs.
- From 1978 to 1992, manufacturers spent as much to defend product
liability suits as they had spent from 1945 to 1974 to develop new
aircraft.
- During the '80s, claims paid by the industry soared from $24 million
to over $210 million.

This was a quote from an old US News and World Report article on the
General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1995, which limited product
liability on aircraft over 18 years old:

"Cessna Aircraft, for example, stopped building single-engine planes in
1986 in part because it was sued nearly every time one of its planes,
regardless of age, suffered an accident."

And a quote from a book on the subject:

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309051304/html/68.html

"The cost for defending itself against product liability claims had
escalated so dramatically that by 1987 Piper was paying a premium of $30
million for an insurance policy with a deductible of $25 million. At
that time, Piper had only $75 million in sales, so it was paying almost
50 percent of its revenues for product liability insurance. "

Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains
and yes, even boats.


Perhaps if you count the airlines. I don't think this is true for private
pilot / piston single flying.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
I'm afraid you're wrong. The costs of obtaining a pilots license is due
to outrageous insurance requirements due to RIDICULOUS and incessant
endless litigation by ambulance chasers and greedy individuals.

The monetary cost of a pilot certificate is minor. It is the year in
training that raises the bar too high for many individuals.

C J Campbell wrote:

The monetary cost of a pilot certificate is minor. It is the year in
training that raises the bar too high for many individuals.

Do you mean that it takes a year or so of calender time? I don't see it
that way.

I probably took longer than average when counting days on the calender given
that I took a winter "off" in the midst of my PPL training. But the
calender time never bugged me. After all, while I was going through my PPL
training, I was flying. How could that be bad grin?

Admittedly, if I were career oriented, it would be different. But then I'd
have taken a more achem accelerated approach to the process.

But if it does turn out that you're correct, should not the "sport license"
help?

- Andrew

kontiki wrote:

Flying is safer (per passenger mile) than traveling in cars, trains
and yes, even boats. The reason it has that record is in part because
the requirement are more stringent.

That is not what the statistics say, assuming you were talking about
general aviation, which was the main part of discussion in this thread
up to now. The following from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics:

(fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles - year 2001)

3.62 General Aviation (Includes all types of GA)
3.05 Motorcycle riders
0.79 Automobile occupants (Pedestrian fatalities not included.)
0.02 Passengers on trains (Grade crossing, trespassing fatalities not
included.)
0.02 Scheduled air carriers (2000 data used to avoid 9/11 fatality
count.)

As far as boats are concerned, it would depend on what segment of the
industry one wanted to compare, and what passenger-miles would be used.

In the case of cruise ships, there have been no fatalities in at least
the last decade from a casualty. There have been a number of people
falling overboard, plus people who simply succumb to natural causes.
Ferryboats also have a very low passenger fatality rate, and therefore
would fare well in a comparison.

Recreational boating is another story, with 681 fatalities reported in
2001, (GA had 562 fatalities, for comparison) but passenger-miles aren't
reported for recreational boats. (There are 60 times as many boats as
there are GA aircraft -- about 211,500 active general aviation aircraft,
and 12.9 million recreational boats -- if that helps people with a
perspective.)

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so much:
low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory requirements,
etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA
project.

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly.
snip

If your theory was correct, wouldn't the implementation of the Recreational
license have provided a near flood, or significant increase, of students?
That is certainly toward the direction of making the license cheaper to
obtain. How many Rec Pilots are clogging the CFI schedules, not many I
would guess.

--
Scott

"tscottme" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much:
low demand, liability, inefficient manufacturing, regulatory
requirements,
etc. It is so daunting that Toyota appears to have scrapped its GA
project.

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot. It takes most people about a year and $7,000 to learn to fly.
snip

If your theory was correct, wouldn't the implementation of the
Recreational
license have provided a near flood, or significant increase, of students?
That is certainly toward the direction of making the license cheaper to
obtain. How many Rec Pilots are clogging the CFI schedules, not many I
would guess.

That was the original idea for the recreational certificate and it is also a
big part of the driving force behind Sport Pilot. Recreational Pilot never
worked because it saved almost nothing off the cost of a Private Pilot.
Sport Pilot may prove much more popular because it allows medical
self-certification. I have had half a dozen students now who took more than
a year just to get a medical certificate. I think Sport Pilot may be tailor
made for such people.