The frustrating economics of aviation

C J Campbell wrote:

Airplanes continue to be difficult to land, maintain course and
altitude, and navigate.

[....]

They still are monstrously hard to control in flight and
even harder to land. One would think that flying could be
made a lot easier than it is now.

It could be, but at much greater cost and with the required technology
separating your already highly stressed, inadequately motivated,
under-trained, and relatively inexperienced human pilot even further
from a comprehension of, and facility with, the dynamics of flight.

Flying an aircraft is not for everybody and we ought to worry less about
fitting square pegs into round holes for the purpose of achieving
dubious economies of scale for those few who are well suited to the game.

What is the point of trying to make a Citabria handle like an F-16? Each
is already available to the appropriately qualified.


Jack

"Jack" wrote in message
...
C J Campbell wrote:

Okay, we have gone 'round and 'round about why new airplanes cost so
much....

[....]

Perhaps one reason demand is so low is because of the cost of becoming a
pilot.

So you're saying that because it costs $7,000 to become a pilot, people
are unwilling to spend $300,000 for an airplane.

I think we need to keep looking.

I think that there is a matter of functionality vs. cost vs. benefit.

Getting the best use from an airplane needs a reasonable level of skill.
That would be a current and practised instrument pilot.
It would also need a airplane that's also reasonably well equipped for the
job in hand.

Next you need a reason to use the aircraft so much in order to get so well
skilled.

I know with me, my wife hates flying and can barely bring herself to travel
on airlines let alone go in a small plane. In 20 years she has only been
with me in a SEPL twice.

My son enjoys flying and may one day take it up himself but does enjoy IMC
so if we go anywhere, then it has to be VMC.

The only other alternative is to get a divorce get a new family who like
travelling. The problem with that is that those pesky lawyers would ensure
that I could not afford a $20,000 plane let alone a $300,000.

For me $300,000 is a big investment, there is no way I could sensibly
justify the spend. Also AVGAS is $6 a gallon so the $100 hamburger is nearer
a $300 one.

cb

"CB" wrote in message
...


The only other alternative is to get a divorce

Never buy homes for more than one woman.

Instead of getting married, next time I'm just going to find a woman I
thoroughly detest and buy her a house.

Old pilot's credo.

Karl


"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"CB" wrote in message
...


The only other alternative is to get a divorce

Never buy homes for more than one woman.

Unlike in medical malpractice, most aviation lawsuits are wrongful death
actions involving dead pilots. And guess who sues when a pilot dies: THE
FAMILIES of dead pilots, blaming the manufacturer for their beloved's death.
So if we want aviation economics to improve, we must prohibit our greedy
spouses and children from suing after we screw-up flying our planes.





"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. Can
you
imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government
imposed
similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat? Most of getting
a
seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills. You
are basically being required to get a very costly license in order to
drive
a kind of boat. What if everyone who drives a boat had to do that? Would
boating be safer? Would it be worth it? Would boating practically die out
as
aviation has?

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

"C J Campbell" wrote
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.

Most of the cost of learning to fly is the airplane, so the $7,000 is
a total red herring - if planes were cheaper to own and operate, it
would cost a lot less. Why do the planes cost so much? People blame
lawyers, but that's bull**** really. The lawyers are just as present
in automotive and boating industries as they are in aviation. What's
the difference? Private aviation is regulated to a level unheard of
in private boating and private driving, and in fact in any other
private activity. In other words, the important difference is the
FAA.

The reason it takes a year is twofold: First, most of the students
don't have the time to devote to focused training, and don't focus
very well anyway. That's because the average student these days is a
lot closer to 47 than 17, and thus has a lot more distractions in his
life and doesn't learn as well as he did at 17. It's not that the 17
year old doesn't want to learn to fly - but he can't afford it unless
he's career track. The ones who are career track are not taking a
year to learn. Most of them aren't even taking a year to go from zero
to CFI/CFII/MEI. They mostly get the private in under a month.

Second, there's a lot of bull**** to learn. The airplanes are
obsolete, and have many quirky handling characteristics. Carb heat?
Mixture control? Why are they like that? Because the cost of
certifying something truly different is horrendous. In other words,
FAA.

The national airspace system is equally quirky. Lots of complex rules
and procedures to learn, many at odds with actual current practice.
Why? FAA.

The bottom line is that the biggest problem killing personal aviation,
making it dangerous, expensive, and not nearly useful enough - is the
FAA.

Can you
imagine what would happen to the boating industry if the government imposed
similar regulatory requirements to learn to drive a boat?

More to the point, can you imagine if private boats were regulated the
way private planes were? In other words, if there was an FAA for
private boats?

Most of getting a
seaplane license, for example, is really demonstrating boating skills.

Sure - and you can get that done in a weekend. And then you can't
rent a seaplane anywhere because the insurance companies know you
haven't actually learned what you need to know to safely operate the
seaplane. So in other words, not only do you go through the process -
but it's also a worthless process.

Would boating practically die out as aviation has?

I think you already know the answer to that. Regulate private boats
the way we regulate private airplanes, and pretty soon there will be
very few left.

Michael

Michael wrote:

Why do the planes cost so much? People blame lawyers, but that's
bull**** really. The lawyers are just as present in automotive
and boating industries as they are in aviation. What's
the difference?

Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was: A VFR
pilot flies into IMC and finds a mountain. What to do? Sue Cessna.
Pilots tend to have better than average income, so large rewards are
expected.

General Motors doesn't have anywhere near the same number of lawsuits
filed against it.

The bottom line is that the biggest problem killing personal aviation,
making it dangerous, expensive, and not nearly useful enough - is the
FAA.

The FAA doesn't force pilots to fly a perfectly good airplane into the
ground, which is the cause of a good proportion of accidents. How are
they to blame?

More to the point, can you imagine if private boats were regulated the
way private planes were? In other words, if there was an FAA for
private boats?

While private boats are coming under increasing scrutiny, they don't yet
have the fatality rate of general aviation. Alcohol seems to be the
biggest problem with boating.

James Robinson wrote
Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was

Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common. The last
one I remember was the governor who crashed. When Kennedy crashed,
nobody sued.

General Motors doesn't have anywhere near the same number of lawsuits
filed against it.

Actually, GM has lots of lawsuits filed against it. It simply has the
money to fight it out.

The FAA doesn't force pilots to fly a perfectly good airplane into the
ground, which is the cause of a good proportion of accidents. How are
they to blame?

Well, in fact it does. It keeps the national airspace system complex
and quirky, it keeps the airplanes obsolete and under-equipped, and
basically makes flying far more difficult than it needs to be. Then
some pilots are not up to it.

More to the point, can you imagine if private boats were regulated the
way private planes were? In other words, if there was an FAA for
private boats?

While private boats are coming under increasing scrutiny, they don't yet
have the fatality rate of general aviation. Alcohol seems to be the
biggest problem with boating.

Actually, private boats (and cars) NO LONGER have the fatality rate of
GA. They've improved a lot. Planes haven't improved much.

Michael

Michael wrote:

James Robinson wrote
Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was

Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common.

They don't need to be that common when they are for millions and millions of
dollars. Who can forget the lawsuit that Piper lost because somebody took off
in their Cub with the seat removed on a runway with a truck intentionally it?
Piper was found at fault because the pilot couldn't see directly in front of
him before the tail wheel came up. (never mind that it was a tailwheel
airplane or that it had been certified by the govt that way or that the seat
had been removed.)
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pi...92/pc9212.html (Piper would later
lose the appeal too).


Or who can forget the poor fellow who flew his Cessna 182 VFR into a massive
thunderstorm in Virginia and was killed? Cessna was found responsible and had
to pay millions and millions because of a "defective tail design." Nevermind
that test pilots flew numerous 182s to Vne and couldn't find anything wrong
with the tail, that it had been certified by the feds, or that pilot had
illegally been scud running into IMC without an instrument rating.

The last
one I remember was the governor who crashed. When Kennedy crashed,
nobody sued.

The knives were sharpened amongst the individual parties but there was a big
settlement. Yes, I"m pretty amazed that Piper and every parts manufacturer
wasn't sued, but they probably figured they already have enough money and it
wasn't worth the time in court. Good for them.

In article , Greg wrote:


Michael wrote:

James Robinson wrote
Not really. The aircraft manufacturers seem to get sued almost
automatically, no matter what the cause of the accident was

Not really. In fact, the lawsuits are not all that common.

There's no database (that I know of) that lists such things, but it
seems based on my own personal non-random observation and misc internet
searchs that every time a Boeing plane goes down, they get sued (including
911). Your resuls might vary...