GAMA 2012 numbers are in

Most women won't be seen dead (sorry; an English expression) in most GA planes, which makes the activity rather "specialised"...>

Suppose that puts me well in the minority of women as I am only too happy to fly any GA plane.....but then definitely "special" :)

That must be engine type dependent, because the best US engine shop I know (Barrett Precision) says Lyco cylinders are the best.

But I don't know the EASA answer... I would ask an EASA approved US engine shop (Pen Yan, etc) about what they do. Obviously we are talking about certified engines here.

There is a lot of talk about PMA parts not being acceptable but in reality everybody uses them because GA would grind to a halt otherwise.

I can surely understand that, and for brake pads etc, its obviously never going to be obvious either way. A more specific question would be whether people can use PMA cylinders etc to overhaul engines for 'EASA aircraft'? Without PMA engine parts, periodic engine overhaul would be a lot more expensive.

Well, Silvaire, the 200kts/5GHP/4Person wonder won't be a Cub-class design, mentioned by Ed Swearingen, would it?

Take a look at a Wittman Tailwind some time :-) I've flown in one at 207 mph, on an IO-320 burning about 8 GPH. Wittman was a non-degreed genius with a huge amount of experience before he designed the Tailwind in the late 40's. Its like a Cub, only simpler.

I am no aircraft designer (just a "normal engineer") but that article URL posted by MH above really resonates with what I have seen, over and over, just watching the "homebuilt/light sports" (using that term loosely) scene from the sidelines.

Also I have always felt the certification costs argument is largely false. If you know the process, then you know what testing is needed, and you can get it done. It doesn't cost hundreds of millions as has been often claimed.

There has also been a lot of obviously fraudulent "flight testing", with flutter issues and stuff like that.

You don't get something for nothing, and only so much weight can be removed by not putting in the fancy interior trim which you get on a $400k plane. In-flight breakups are a pretty common feature of the accident reports.

I see a lot of justifiable frustration in the EU with FAA STCs not being accepted by EASA, but what is the situation with PMA parts?

This is gradually changing. FAA STCs are not accepted directly by anybody except Australia, AFAIK. But the data used to get them (e.g. DER data) is now supposed to be acceptable to EASA, for an EASA STC. One avionics installer confirmed this to me the other day. There is a lot of talk about PMA parts not being acceptable but in reality everybody uses them because GA would grind to a halt otherwise.

But looking at the wider picture, the "common" stuff now has EASA STCs. And most stuff in the "indicating instrument" category is an EASA Minor mod anyway.

My own concern which remains is that the most reputable US engine shops, or instrument overhaulers, do not have EASA approvals and are never likely to have, so their output can go only into an N-reg. EASA approvals are thus used to shield all kinds of poorly performing organisations (ISO9000 anybody?).

But that's OK because EASA has not introduced any long term parking limits on foreign reg planes. It "merely" requires the pilots (subject to conditions) to have EASA pilot papers, but they would need those anyway to get equivalent privileges in an EASA-reg plane.

Well, Silvaire, the 200kts/5GHP/4Person wonder won't be a Cub-class design, mentioned by Ed Swearingen, would it? Point is, that with right engineering from the beginning, certification costs do reduce and the documentation gets a lot easier, if done right from the beginning, not just as a boring necessity after the plane is finished. Besides, I was aiming at bad engineering in contrast to good engineering. A degree in engineering isn't always a quality feature for a designer or engineer. There are an awful lot of uncreative blokes running around with a Masters degrees or even Ph.D. Besides, Mr. VanGrundsven has a degree.

My personal experience, however, supports Mr. Scotts article. As I said, many ultralights/microlights (in Germany) are best example of what happens with laissez-faire certification procedures.

Cheers,

In my earlier post I raised the issue of US kit-built aircraft because the original discussion was about new aircraft, and in that arena kit-builts are where the numbers are in the US. That said, the other growth area is restoring inexpensive older airframes as Urs and MH suggested. There's a lot of it going on in the US. My own choice has been to 'cherry pick' the used aircraft market, buying what I think are nice low time aircraft for low prices. Then the upgrades and restoration work is limited and can mostly be done in my hangar by A&Ps I already know.

Re STCs, upgrades and maintenance, I see a lot of justifiable frustration in the EU with FAA STCs not being accepted by EASA, but what is the situation with PMA parts? They are a huge cost saver, with an 0-200 field overhaul (or top overhaul) managed by a private owner being done for perhaps half the cost of similar work on a Rotax.

MH, Alfred Scott has always expressed a somewhat different view of the world, and the article you mention was released 20 years ago. Since then, the 'Vans kit built industry' has really grown to the extent of a paradigm shift - Van's designs are not perfect but very few would question the integrity of their engineering. I think Ed Swearingen (an engineer, unlike Scott) had it right in that article :-)

I wonder, if the certification itself is really the problem, or if part of the problem is sloppy engineering, as suggested by Alfred Scott (http://www.seqair.com/Other/LiteEng/LiteEng.html). He sure has a point here and for what I have experienced so far, be it as an aerospace engineering student or during work at a known German avionic manufacturer. It would be interesting to hear Pilot DARs opinion on certification processes and the standard of engineering with different manufacutrers. You can see bad engineering or bad design on nearly every second microlight design and you don't have to be graduated in aerospace engineering for figuring that.

They want a separate STC for every single radio, every single instrument, every single item you want to change, making this process unpayable. They actively prevent innovation this way as only STC´s granfathered from the pre JAR days can be still installed without tens of thousands of Euros wasted on paperwork.

It's actually nothing like that... unless you are talking to a totally bent avionics shop.

It is not long ago that I attended one of the most frustrating presentations of my life. ATC explaining the airspace use of tomorrow

ATC (and Eurocontrol) presentations are always utterly depressing, to anybody who knows the front end of a plane from the back. But they almost never get their way, because (having spent €millions on some 10,000 page proposal, somebody realises it isn't going to fly, and it gets binned.

I've been to a UK ATC presentation where they stated they would ban all single pilot jets, and another one where they said anybody setting 7600 will get shot down (and yes the senior ATCO from NATS repeated this with a straight face when I queried it).

Doesn't stop pointless nonsense like 8.33 but there are solutions, and this isn't a cheap hobby...

In reality, ATC individuals are very professional (in most places), and the biggest fish to fry are other things like airport opening hours, avgas, etc.

If somebody was going to make a 200kt 2-seater plane which burns 5 USG/hr, he would get a Nobel Prize for discovering a new type of energy.

Silvaire,

You prove my point. In the US, where private flying is possible in uncertified airplanes, that is where people go to avoid the expensive certified market which is expensive just because it is certified!

In one way, it is pretty alike the N-reg way Europeans do. Americans can not live with the cost of certification either, but they do have that way out. So you can get a fully equipped and capable touring machine for a fraction of a price, with twice the performance and real inovation. These planes and avionics never make it into certification, primarily because they don´t want to even. But they are mainstream as hell.

If you look at avionic packages alone, you will see the huge difference in price between a certified and non certified G500 for instance. Or if you compare a fully equipped G1000 cockpit with the fully equipped Dynon suite, well, the difference is not that striking in terms of functionality but it is worlds apart in terms of money.

Yes, Peter, a simple C172 costs above 300k these days, a Cirrus between 500k and 800k. This is ridiculous in terms of what you get, still a single engine spamcan with fancy electronics, but which, were it not for the horrendous certification and monopoly costs, would probably sell for 150-200k. USD that is.

In Europe, this is a no go, as we well know. No IFR, not even VFR by night, 2 seats only, e.t.c. The anti GA mafia has this strongly in their hands and won´t let go, ever. So basically, you can buy planes for the price of a used citation which still will only do 140 kts and burn 15 gph doing it.

We could well have capable airplanes in our skies today, were the certification process for privately used planes up to, say 2500 kg to be adapted to what car manufacturers have to prove. We could have them for the price of a luxury car, which is fine, but not for a bloody business jet!

I have been talking to a manufacturer from Eastern Europe whose planes are reasonably successful in Europe, but have a major payload problem not because of structure or integrity but because of the cap set by EASA to the VLA class. We were talking about the possibility of a 200 kt, 5 gph, 2 seat travelling machine, IFR, with a service ceiling of maybe 25k ft, or a 4 seat version of it. His answer was, that is easy, we actually had a 2 seat variant with a stock IO320 with turbo normalizing, 790 kg MTOW which ran 180 kt at 15000 ft and at 6 gph, which gave it a range of over 1500 NM. But he sais, for those figures they need to certify it, which would mean it would cost about 400k Euros, IFR certified once finished. Unsellable. Without certification, he figures about 120k Euros, IFR equipped but with components used in the non certified range. Which for Europe means, a lovely kit plane but not usable for IFR.

He also figured, a 4 seater with 360 kg payload with full fuel would be possible with a stock 180 hp machine or a diesel, making equally about 180 kts and 1500 NM range, but cost would be that of a Cirrus. So why bother. Were it possible to market them with Dynon or other avionics, the uncertified Lycoming engine which came out for the experimental market e.t.c. It might reach 150 k Euros.

So the major problem in Europe with the GA list is overregulation and innovation killing certification criteria all over the world.

Equally, we could easily do a ¨pimp my ride¨ thing for spamcans as I see them done in places like Lithuania, where a paint and cabin guy will turn any garden chair equipped PA28 into a Cirrus interior, throw out the steam gauges and beef them up in order to create pre-used but better than new aircraft for those who can´t afford new planes. It would be easy to do and very cost efficient. BUT: again, the regulators will not have it.

They want a separate STC for every single radio, every single instrument, every single item you want to change, making this process unpayable. They actively prevent innovation this way as only STC´s granfathered from the pre JAR days can be still installed without tens of thousands of Euros wasted on paperwork.

The fact of the matter is, our politicians do not want us in the skies. They want General Aviation dead and buried so they can continue on their plans to turn Europe in the brave new world of Eurosocialism. GA is one expression of freedom any totalitarian regime hates. So this is why they have no interest whatsoever in accomodating us.

I am sorry, I do get quite mad at times looking at this whole problematic. I would have loved to equip my own airplane with up to date avionics, put some US STC d mods on it and enjoy it, but if I see that the cost for those major alternations in paperwork alone will be inferior to the value of the airframe, I can only say, if that has not system, then what does.

It is not long ago that I attended one of the most frustrating presentations of my life. ATC explaining the airspace use of tomorrow. Guess what, no GA in it whatsoever. Quote of the day: ¨We see no benefit in aviation below 20 tons and approach speeds of below 150 knots at any instrument equipped airports, as they disrupt the traffic flow, do not serve a public purpose and are generally just rich man´s toys.¨ I could have killd the idiot there and then, him being one of Europes higher ATC specialists who has an open ear in Brussels and Köln. No wonder.

Best regards Urs