Turbines/Pistons in GA
The thread on the Condobolin accident developed into a GA piston/turbine discussion, which wasn't the direction most appropriate to the original intent of the thread, hence a new topic...
There were statements made by Bushy that airlines are earning huge profits because the regs favour them and somehow piston engine aircraft are getting dealt a bad hand and unfairly picked on. I would be keen to hear more. Does that mean the airlines should be required to fork out subsidies to the piston engine operators who can't make a profit? You don't see some sort of connection between those profits and turbine engines?
A strong argument could be made that aviation innovation has almost been concentrated in the turbine field. Why? Because that is where the market is moving. Business, regulators, etc., realise that the future of aviation is in turbines. Piston engines have not been getting the funding because the market for them is drying up. "A campaign to get rid of piston engined aircraft"? If that is another term for what you could call market forces and equipment redundancy, then I guess you're right. But you're making it out that there is a conspiracy where none exists.
I agree, there is little incentive to buy a new piston engine aircraft, but it would be a HUGE mistake to subsidise that side of the industry. If I had the market, inclination and money, I'd be buying turbine and steering clear of the piston engine market for anything but a fun ultralight or small private aircraft too. The market for piston engine aircraft is declining, not from regulation or sinister campaigns, but solely from a market demand standpoint. It's not that one type is safer than the other, although figures may point to turbines being safer, it's just that turbines and what you can do with them, are more reliable, predictable and the numbers are easy to crunch, all of which is great from a business and operational viewpoint.
40 or so years ago, if memory serves me correct, the smallest Australian commuter aircraft with a turbine was the F-27 (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) and country towns were lucky to get one service per week, government funded or not. Turbine engine aircraft and particularly improved cars and highways are relegating piston engine charter and private ops to the dark ages. Is that bad? It is for the piston engine afficianadoes, but that's Change. Hanging onto the piston engine aircraft argument is like toting a typewriter around.
The one (and it could be said ONLY) advantage that old piston engine aircraft have is in their acquisition costs. Why is that? Because the market is giving a very strong message that few people want them anymore. Is it any wonder piston engine aircraft operators are having trouble making a buck? The market is giving them strong indications (short of hitting them over the head with a hammer) of declining demand for piston engine ops and they aren't listening! Go figure!
There's still a place and a market for old piston engine aircraft, but with each accident, it just gets smaller. A market can't be changed and grown by rehashing old equipment. When one market is tapped out, a new one must be found. From a personal view, I would love to see the regs changed as they relate to RPT flights. By accommodating somewhat regular charter flights into aerodromes without them being classified as RPT would be a way to boost some additional competition into the industry and foster new markets.
Any comments?