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;

[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?

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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!