skydawg
Well-Known Member
There are several topics about why GA is in the state it is. A lot of opinions and lay of blame. I thought it would be a good topic to share what members here believe reasons for GA’s continuing demise. Many here have been involved in GA for a long time and seen first hand GA‘s slow demise since the 1980s. Also, new comers to GA have A Different take without such perspective.
Some here have a propensity to pontificate opinions with little substance or reference and tend to get off centerline. . So, I ask we keep opinions attached to some tier of fact and stay on topic.
My take, the fault lays mostly with FAA leadership over decades. I get and reference that in 1950-1970s GA hay day prosperity was due primarily to GI Bill spending on flight training and later tax incentives for owners to buy and lease back aircraft with a good chance of breaking near even. However, GA tech remained frozen in the 1950s while all other segments well evolved, protected by FAA by expensive over the top certifications costs,….. as well as other risk to new competitors as civil liability. By 1980s, GA shrinkage made any new meaningful investment more difficult……. such as Toyota and Porsche pulling their newly FAA certified engines and surrendering their TC. This situation got worse ever since.
As GA shrinks, so goes small airports, insurance providers, repair shops, tie downs and hanger availability, ECT; further increasing the final reason for GA’s demise…. the high cost to participate in GA. Cost remains the real barrier with little effort from the FAA to help with any solution. For GA to survive and even rebound, cost must be significantly lowered to spur new participation.
Five years ago, we set out to develop a practical solution of an auto conversion for older legacy airframes which, at the time, were often being scrapped considering cost of engine overhaul. We used a c172 test aircraft for the first proof of concept. Within a couple of years, our c172 was being used for private and commercial pilot training and successful FAA check rides, at a cost less than half and not burning a drop of leaded gas. We started down the road of a STC so others could install our engine on old airplanes. (it’s software controlled so easy to fit other airframe types), got a G1 issue paper, but it became all to clear FAA leadership did not want any such solution unless it was provided by either Textron Lycoming, or we had the political or inside Faa contacts… or the funding to buy it.
I explained to FAA leadership that GA is too small for resourceful companies to enter the market with new meaningful lower cost tech, and any such solutions will come from small passionate entities without the funding to to both make the solution and afford climbing regulatory road blocks. Instead, we had upper leadership (many different persons) do what ever they could to shut us down using unethical weasel-like methods.
So, my option is based much on this experience and simple observation owning aircraft and working in GA for over 3 decades. As a former DER test pilot of transport category jets, I experienced how fast things get done when applicants have money and their own FAA designated representative, but the opposite for a small entity regardless of a practical and proven solution. I received a number of messages from small business that ran into the exact gauntlets we did.
for GA to survive I believe FAA needs to address the cost barrier to entry and change an entrenched culture and seek - if not encourage- ways for new ideas that may lower cost and emission, as well as increase safety. lowering cost will increase number aircraft in rental fleet and operators as flying clubs, In turn increasing repair shops, stop the closing of small airports, and so forth.
Some here have a propensity to pontificate opinions with little substance or reference and tend to get off centerline. . So, I ask we keep opinions attached to some tier of fact and stay on topic.
My take, the fault lays mostly with FAA leadership over decades. I get and reference that in 1950-1970s GA hay day prosperity was due primarily to GI Bill spending on flight training and later tax incentives for owners to buy and lease back aircraft with a good chance of breaking near even. However, GA tech remained frozen in the 1950s while all other segments well evolved, protected by FAA by expensive over the top certifications costs,….. as well as other risk to new competitors as civil liability. By 1980s, GA shrinkage made any new meaningful investment more difficult……. such as Toyota and Porsche pulling their newly FAA certified engines and surrendering their TC. This situation got worse ever since.
As GA shrinks, so goes small airports, insurance providers, repair shops, tie downs and hanger availability, ECT; further increasing the final reason for GA’s demise…. the high cost to participate in GA. Cost remains the real barrier with little effort from the FAA to help with any solution. For GA to survive and even rebound, cost must be significantly lowered to spur new participation.
Five years ago, we set out to develop a practical solution of an auto conversion for older legacy airframes which, at the time, were often being scrapped considering cost of engine overhaul. We used a c172 test aircraft for the first proof of concept. Within a couple of years, our c172 was being used for private and commercial pilot training and successful FAA check rides, at a cost less than half and not burning a drop of leaded gas. We started down the road of a STC so others could install our engine on old airplanes. (it’s software controlled so easy to fit other airframe types), got a G1 issue paper, but it became all to clear FAA leadership did not want any such solution unless it was provided by either Textron Lycoming, or we had the political or inside Faa contacts… or the funding to buy it.
I explained to FAA leadership that GA is too small for resourceful companies to enter the market with new meaningful lower cost tech, and any such solutions will come from small passionate entities without the funding to to both make the solution and afford climbing regulatory road blocks. Instead, we had upper leadership (many different persons) do what ever they could to shut us down using unethical weasel-like methods.
So, my option is based much on this experience and simple observation owning aircraft and working in GA for over 3 decades. As a former DER test pilot of transport category jets, I experienced how fast things get done when applicants have money and their own FAA designated representative, but the opposite for a small entity regardless of a practical and proven solution. I received a number of messages from small business that ran into the exact gauntlets we did.
for GA to survive I believe FAA needs to address the cost barrier to entry and change an entrenched culture and seek - if not encourage- ways for new ideas that may lower cost and emission, as well as increase safety. lowering cost will increase number aircraft in rental fleet and operators as flying clubs, In turn increasing repair shops, stop the closing of small airports, and so forth.
