Ageing GA Fleet

[Capot]

This may belong in Private Flying, but then a lot of people earn a living in GA...

Here are 2 charts taken from a presentation given at an EASA workshop last week by a GAMA representative. I cannot vouch for the figures, nor am I sure of the exact definitions, but I assume (perhaps wrongly) that they are global totals. (The charts are published by EASA and are in the public domain.)

The charts tell 2 sides of the same story....and it's an ominous one;

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff141/picshooter/8a8a0b3f-d38b-4db8-b1d7-1e1f7956cd4f_zpsx7nsn6l3.png

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff141/picshooter/a4000868-33f0-4e69-96e1-163fd125346c_zps0ckdx5p5.png

[The Ancient Geek]

The charts tell 2 sides of the same story....and it's an ominous one;

Indeed, but the perhaps the thread should be titled "How 1970s american product liability lawyers destroyed GA".

[Big Pistons Forever]

Cessna production in 1978: 9700 piston airplanes in 42 different models
Cessna Production in 2014: 270 piston airplanes in 3 different models

1978 C 172 price: $ 128,000 (original price adjusted for inflation to 2015)
2015 C 172 price: $ 415,000

[piperboy84]

2015 C 172 price: $ 415,000

And how much is built into that $415 grand for product liability and ambulance chasers ?

[Looigi]

I was told some time ago that 75% of the cost of a new Cessna is directly related to liability insurance costs of the manufacturer.

[Rod1]

The info only covers certified aircraft so is not a true reflection of the age of the GA fleet in total. The Permit side of GA has been doing well for many years - think how many shiny new Van's aircraft are around.

Rod1

[The Ancient Geek]

Liability problems are no longer the real problem, the USA law was changed.

The real problem nowadays is certification, this is much more difficult than in the early 1970s due to 40 years of creeping standards changes.

Certificating a new aircraft is a long, complex and very expensive process and this cost has to be recovered over a smaller volume of sales.

[cockney steve]

It is acknowledged fact that uncertificated aircraft are no less "safe" than certificated aircraft....perhaps time for a third category "BUILT TO STANDARD"
Already, Permit aircraft can be built of materials "suitable for aircraft construction"
Perhaps any supplier would need a suitable Bond, to prevent the unscrupulous selling a range of junk and then cutting and running.
but, the present system works, you can build an aircraft out of identical components at less than 1/4 of the cost......
the certification charade is just a huge gravy-train quango, It doesn't make construction better or safer, it just makes lots of employment inspecting and paper pushing.
there is a much bigger market at 100K, than there is at 400K. Commercial pressures tend to make the industry self-regulating, without this huge parasite sucking it's life-blood.
the motor Industry does have it's recalls, but I'd guess, on a per-unit basis, they are a fraction of Aircraft Component recalls.

Completed vehicles have to gain "type-approval" Aircraft, likewise. That is sensible. the ridiculous paper trail is , by and large a gross overkill for the number of failuresit prevents,

ISTR a Jodel being laid-up bacause a standard automotive switch did not have the required paperwork....it came from the same production line as the "certified"component. but couldn't be fitted because that would undermine the "safety industry."

[Bob Upanddown]

Cessna production in 1978: 9700 piston airplanes in 42 different models

The Permit side of GA has been doing well for many years - think how many shiny new Van's aircraft are around.

New, less regulated, aircraft seems to be the only way light aviation in general is going to survive.
But really Rod? Only 8000 Vans kits have been built in total, that might keep aviation ticking over but it is not the answer. And, to be honest, I am not going to trust my ar*e to a kit plane someone else built and I don't have time to build my own.

The only way to go is less regulation / bigger "microlights" (bigger as in 4 seats and the size of a PA-28, not 4 seats for midgets and the size of a Banbi).

[Capn Bug Smasher]

Capot: are the figures in the first chart design age - as in, how long ago the aircraft was designed - or actual age, i.e. how old the hull is?

:eek: if it's the latter - which, on second thoughts, I suspect it is.

[Bob Upanddown]

1978 C 172 price: $ 128,000 (original price adjusted for inflation to 2015)
2015 C 172 price: $ 415,000


Interestingly, I have the original bill of sale for my aircraft. It is worth (according to a well-known valuation book), in pure money terms, twice what it was purchased for. It is worth, adjusted for inflation to 2015 values, half what that purchase price is worth in 2015.


EASA might be making it easier to maintain and SEP aircraft (MEP and turbines are, in my experience, becoming more regulated in terms of maintenance) but they aren’t making it any easier to build aircraft. Nor, to be honest, are the Yanks.


Making maintenance easy but manufacturer hard will just encourage the average age of the fleet to keep on increasing until that 1960-70’s blip disappears. In pure risk terms, is it not better to have a newer fleet built to a less regulated standard than it is an aging fleet maintained to a less regulated standard???

[Rod1]

Bob - I was talking about the Permit side of GA not home built. I fly a 4 seat factory built aircraft on a permit. I think if you add all the permit aircraft that have come to the UK in the last 30 years it is very close to the number of SEP C of A machines currently in the UK. I am not saying permit is the answer, but to exclude such a large number of aircraft from the figures is misleading.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

Bob - I was talking about the Permit side of GA not home built. I fly a 4 seat factory built aircraft on a permit. I think if you add all the permit aircraft that have come to the UK in the last 30 years it is very close to the number of SEP C of A machines currently in the UK. I am not saying permit is the answer, but to exclude such a large number of aircraft from the figures is misleading.

Rod1

From previous posts, you are presumably still flying an MCR01?

That surely is an amateur built aircraft from a kit, requiring 51%+ effort by the builder, not factory built.

G

[Rod1]

I do fly an MCR which is up for sale but I also fly a Jodel which is factory built and has 4 seats on an LAA permit to fly.

Rod1

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair enough. Permit has several forms, but it's worth mentioning that it's vintage that used to have a CofA but slipped to PtF because of lack of manufacturer's support.

So, factory built, but the difference is perhaps moot.

G

[Pace]

Yes there are many 30 year old aircraft! There is nothing wrong with that but aviation is very expensive whether you fly a 30 year old smelly wreck with dated avionics and torn trim and seats or a plush modern aircraft with the latest avionic nav fix.

If flight schools expect the amount of money they receive the aircraft presentation should be right which means new interiors and avionic fixes to match the money expected

Pace

[9 lives]

It is acknowledged fact that uncertificated aircraft are no less "safe" than certificated aircraft..

This door swings both ways....

No matter which way you look at it, a certified aircraft has demonstrated compliance to all of the applicable certification requirements. A non certified aircraft may meet some, or perhaps all of those requirements (or maybe few) but it's compliance status is not clearly defined. Therefore, if the "public", and pilots are content to fly in aircraft which have not been found to comply with design requirements, and later quality of maintenance, they are well able to fly non certified - but generally not for rent nor hire.

Our respective societies still feel the need (like it or not) to assure that aircraft being operated for hire, or internationally, in most cases, comply with nationally accepted design requirements. I have lobbied the regulators for years to develop a simplified regulatory path for these aircraft, and even a regulator agrees that it is past due. It's just the inertia to start that regulatory shift - and toward what?

ASTM was a big step forward, but it still has roots in the formal certification standards. There are many excellent non certified aircraft out there, and I think that some would largely comply were they to be submitted for acceptance. However, "the public" still want aircraft with predictable characteristics, so they are not let down the once a year they fly, and not going to have one drop on them the rest of the time.

There is a huge paperwork exercise associated with any certification, because the certifying authority wants records on file, in case they end up in court a decade from now....

[xrayalpha]

Hey guys,

Keep going on about how wonderful 50-year-old aircraft are, it helps me stay in business with my modern, factory-built, permit aircraft (which, legally, I could also hire out!)

It amazes me that my GA rivals really don't seem to make an effect to get rid of cliche-ed stuffing-sticking-out-of-the-seats aircraft.

In any other business, as an individual operator you would invest or die.

It seems GA - as a whole - is slowly dying because there is a collective lack of investment. They can't even be bothered to "repair the seats". How much does it really cost to have a nice interior, a panel without holes and a paint job from this millenium (now that we are c15 years into it)?

ps As though you haven't guessed, we fly light aircraft that can just be squeezed into the microlight category. In the microlight world, those schools flying the traditional three-axis microlights - AXs and Thrusters - have, almost without exception, long gone. Invest or die.

[Bob Upanddown]

Don't disagree with you, XA.

But we need a category that will allow the same as the microlight category (brand new factory built on a permit) enjoys to bring aviation down to a cost that more can enjoy.

[9 lives]

It amazes me that my GA rivals really don't seem to make an effect to get rid of cliche-ed stuffing-sticking-out-of-the-seats aircraft.

How old is the house you live in? Yes, I do see some houses being leveled to make room for new ones, but not on a regular basis. We don't raze a house because it needs a kitchen reno, and new paint, we invest in the house.

The fact that people choose not to maintain the appearance of older aircraft is not automatically a slight to their airworthiness, though I agree it's an indicator as to attitude. I have repainted, interior'd, redone the panel, installed new radios and zero'd one engine in both of my 1970's planes since I have owned them.

At a recent visit to an aerodrome primarily frequented by non certified types, I saw many really junky looking aircraft, some of which were seemingly abandoned - and I doubt any of them were as as old as 15 years.

The cost of brand new design and manufactured certified aircraft is too high, and a disincentive to investment for most "private" owners to be. That's sad. But to label all older aircraft as inadequate is not right either. My 1975 C 150 is worth twice what it's original factory price was, and I have paid fairly to maintain it in that condition. But on the whole, it has paid me a little to fly it 2900 hours in the last 28 years - one of my better investments!

[Rod1]

Step Turn - the regulation system in the UK is a bit different to most other areas in the world. In the UK permit aircraft are tested and cleared as safe by an appropriately competent organization (LAA BMAA etc). The UK CAA accepted a report comparing 20 years of accidents in the UK, permit v CofA. The Permit came out marginally on top on safety so we can say that under UK rules permit are just as safe as C of A, it would be misleading to take this as true for the US etc.

The UK CAA are now in advanced talks on clearing some permit aircraft for IFR use and on extending the use of permit aircraft in the training environment.

There has been a big increase in permit aircraft in the UK, many new factory built micros etc, the numbers mentioned above did not include permit aircraft and my point was that this was extremely misleading and paints a much blacker picture than reality.

Rod1

[The Ancient Geek]

A substantial part of the certification costs for light aircraft is due to their being in the same FAA Part 23 category as 19 seat commuter airliners and business jets.
This has been partly resolved by the LSA and Microlight categories but these are too restrictive and what we need is a separate category for single engine types up to a sensible weight limit of maybe 1500 Kg.

The other half of the problem is small production volumes, a manufacturer needs to sell a lot of aircraft to cover the initial design and certification costs, the problem here is the decline in the number of private pilots. Getting more people back into flying is a difficult question and costs are a big factor.

Fewer manufacturers each getting a larger share of the market could also make a big difference to the cost of new aircraft.

[JOE-FBS]

Ancient Greek,

Most of your post is correct but your first sentence is a bit sweeping. Yes, CS-23 / FAR 23 does contain rules for a very broad range of aeroplanes but as I know from recent experience (I've spent the last two years on the GameBird team), if you build an an aeroplane with fixed gear, conventional instruments, manual controls, unpowered brakes, etc. most of it can be marked not applicable. The minute you start adding primary flight displays, powered brakes, electronic engine control, etc. you get into the difficult certification territory. A new aeroplane can be done for single figures of millions of US dollars if one is sensible about it but because of the sales volumes it takes years to get it back and modern capitalists don't like that.

[xrayalpha]

Step Turn,

Funnily enough, my house is brand new!

(search YouTube for Grand Designs airfield)

[Jan Olieslagers]

Ancient Greek,

Sigh. Reading really is an art.

[Capot]

Capn Bug Smasher; Re the definition of age in the charts in my OP, I don't know for sure, but I agree with your suspicion that it is the age of the aircraft from date of manufacture. It couldn't be anything else really.

The workshop also covered developments in "alleviations" of regulations governing the smaller GA aircraft, which are of interest to anyone who owns and/or maintains such a thing. EG; "Part M Light".

I was stalking a different tiger and didn't take much notice of that, but the presentations (universally of dire quality) are in the public domain and can all be found here. (http://easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/events/maintenance-production-workshop)

Good Luck! They are rivetting reads. One of them is the one with the charts I reproduced.

[AJMortimer]

Not just the cost of the aircraft, but the cost of flying training appears to have risen at a greater rate than inflation it seems over the same period.

I'd be interested to learn what others think, but from memory of hourly training rates in the 70s the cost of flying training seems to have risen at approximately twice the applicable rate of inflation (based on memory of flying rates and applying that to an internet historic inflation calculator)?

[Capot]

My memory is failing fast.....I am certain that in 1963/4 we paid £3.50 per month (fixed) to the Club, and about the same per hour for the use of an Auster Autocrat or a little 2-seat Jodel, and a little bit more for a 4-seat Piper Caribbean. Those payments covered all costs including fuel but excluding landing fees etc away from base. Dual instruction did not cost any more; all instructors were volunteers, many ex-RAF, who did it for enjoyment. It was a Club, not a School, and all the better for it.

My net Army pay at the time was about £1,200 a year, and they gave me accommodation and 3 good meals a day. I see that I averaged about 7 hours a month, so I was spending about 1/3rd of my salary on flying. (And at least 1/2 of it in pubs and on a series of old bangers).

Nowadays, I have heard that a Lieutenant gets about £35,000 a year, but has to pay for food and accommodation; let's guess that costs £5K/year. So if he/she did what I did, same flying time, for 1/3rd of his/her remaining salary after food/accommodation costs, he/she would spend £10,000 on 84 hours, ie £119 per hour. I suspect that this is roughly what it does cost for a club trainer or runabout flown as P1, so club flying costs seem to have kept pace with Army pay rises at least, and probably the CoL Index as well.

(Note: Old bangers were cars, not girlfriends....the girls had to buy their own beer, I was skint.)

Note 2: Yes, yes, I know it was £3 10s 0d. But for the sake of the less abled I thought I would call it £3.50. And I can't actually remember how to write it in £sd. Did I get it right?

[vector4fun]

Before everybody panics,

My 1972 Cessna has fewer hours on it than many five year old airliners.....

[Silvaire1]

Before everybody panics,

My 1972 Cessna has fewer hours on it than many five year old airliners.....

My 1971 aircraft has fewer hours on it than many 6 month old airliners, and despite doing 500 hours in its first summer, my 1946 aircraft has less than 2000 hrs today. There are a lot of good planes out there, and I think now is a great time to be buying and flying them.

[Weeeee]

I'm sure the US product liability / ambulance chasing culture / low volume / regulation all have had their impact on the cost and vitality of the industry.

From my direct experience of the last 20 years flying, I'd say the two main factors in cost have been:

1) Fuel
2) Cost of housing driving up salaries driving up the cost of everything.

[foxmoth]

Posts: 40
Not just the cost of the aircraft, but the cost of flying training appears to have risen at a greater rate than inflation it seems over the same period.

I'd be interested to learn what others think, but from memory of hourly training rates in the 70s the cost of flying training seems to have risen at approximately twice the applicable rate of inflation (based on memory of flying rates and applying that to an internet historic inflation calculator)?

I used to pay £5/HR to rent a Beagle Pup in about 1974, applying inflation that comes out to around £60, not much you can rent at that price, though it is about what the hourly rate on our group RV works out at.