I think it’s a wonderful thing that the design of aircraft, unlike cars, has largely avoided oppression by regulation. It means that fun aircraft, unlike the remaining fun cars built in the early 70s and before, are still affordable to the average guy and haven’t appreciated in market value, out of reach. The only problem is the vast and growing over regulation of aircraft operation, and the costs it creates, where that applies. That is clearly taking its toll in Europe.
The good news in the context of aircraft design is that organizations like NTSB must at least to some degree justify their ‘safety’ recommendations based on numbers, i.e. that there is actually a problem… and there isn’t.
I would agree that oppression by regulation is a very bad thing, but if I was making a plane, even a cheap crappy one, and even in a totally deregulated environment, I would still make sure it has
etc.
Most of these things can be taken straight out of a car (in Socata’s case, a 1970s Renault) and certified under the manufacturer’s Part 145 / DER / Part 21 authority. Then you just buy them from the car manufacturer in batches of say 100, with a CofC.
I think a failure to do these basic things is just negligence – because it is easy to do.
The fact that a pilot is supposed to look out for various things which can catch him out and kill him does not make it OK to give him crap fuel gauges, crap seat mountings, etc.
Peter, I have a feeling you (and the guy from USA Today!) might disapprove of tail wheel aircraft in which the fuel gauges read just above zero until the plane is airborne! The practical answer in that case is to stick the tanks which works OK in a high wing plane because there’s probably no dihedral, to go with no fuel pumps and no primer. Also no seat adjustment because there are no seats bottoms, just cushions. It works for its purpose, without carrying having carried around too much unnecessary stuff for decades….
The panel/plane pictured has been flown thousands of miles on cross countries, slowly it must be said, but fairly surely. You can buy another plane too, if you’d like to do another job. I don’t think the world is a more enjoyable place with mandated complexity.
The other night I was reading about advancements in sail technology that occurred in the 19th century (in my favorite book, or one of them 
) It occurred to me to wonder what attitude modern day sailors might have towards their craft, the ones who travel around the world in devices that have been slowly refined since that time because there’s not a hell of lot to do to them, fundamentally. Do they also want something different than the market has supplied, heavy and complicated like a 2014 car? I guess the ones who buy their sailing boats from Perini Navi with power driven sails etc like them that way, and more power to them. Its their $millions to spend, and accordingly their choice to make. Judging by what you see out on the water, others choose to spend their money differently
Forumites, my daily runner is a ‘72 VW 1300 – it gets the same mileage, on average as my wife’s A1, but probably costs me nothing – well maintained they appreciate at around 5-10 per cent p.a, around €150 comprehensive insurance, no tax and minimal service costs. Not a toy in my view, and will do me until I hang up my headsets.
…as for the no gyro, no electric Super Cub, at a young sixty four years old I expect it to comfortably outlast me.
Good enough for Patton in the Italian campaign.
Both seem to combine low enough running costs while preserving capital value to have a much better economic life span than other types.
Not a toy in my view, and will do me until I hang up my headsets.
Of the 32 pupils that started school with we in 1968 all are still alive with the exception of those who died in car accidents in the 1960es and 70ies in their parent’s cars of that vintage. Two alone got killed on the evening of the festivities of our baccalaureate in a 2CV accident at very low speed. No one that I personally know has died in a car accident in a car built after 1985 or so, because some rather simple and comparatively cheap security measures have made most accidents survivable. This reflects in the accident statistics that have dropped from 15,000 per year in my youth (german numbers) to 3500 per year now – with a two fold increase in the number of vehicles on the road and more than twice as much horse power and topspeed per vehicle. This kind of development has bypassed most of the lightplane industry and this is not only a shame but a scandal in my eyes.
Automotive style passive safety technology isn’t really all that applicable to aircraft because of its weight. A Lotus Elan was for instance about 60% of the weight of its late model equivalent/copy, the Mazda MX-5, and a fair bit of that is due to making the car into a kind of padded battering ram to protect the occupants. Not a terribly efficient approach.
The passive safety device that does work for aircraft is a good harness – for most of my flying now, I wear a 5 point harness, and FAA has a much simplified (almost trivial) approval process for installing upgraded harnesses in certified aircraft, should the owner desire. Suppliers like BAS have produced kits and a lot of owners have chosen to install them because to them as individuals weighing their own priorities, it makes sense. You also won’t find many Experimental Category aircraft without good harnesses.
I think the main point is that light aircraft owners and buyers, adults with a stake in costs and outcome, have no problems choosing what they want to buy, and its certainly not proven to be more design codification or oversight over the last 35 years! Spectators (paid and unpaid), do-gooders, journalists and regulators tend to destroy everything they touch and have certainly had no positive effect on my quality of life with vehicles… as an owner with a stake. I’ve already wasted too much of my life’s energy and productivity in avoiding them, and so have a lot of other people: worldwide demand has made a 45 year old Lotus Elan worth maybe five times the price of a used late model MX-5 in similar condition.
PS I have an idea… perhaps government should protect us all by requiring all aircraft to have a parachute!
(just kidding, honest)
This kind of development has bypassed most of the lightplane industry and this is not only a shame but a scandal in my eyes.
This isn’t exactly true, also see Silvaire’s comments. Parachutes has indeed prevented many deaths. No one prevents you from wearing a parachute. Glider pilots have had them for as long as I can remember. Just 2 or 3 years ago they saved two lives here in a mid air between two gliders. BRS is mandatory on all German microlights, it’s optional here.
For aerobatics parachutes are required in many countries (USA also when two persons are on board as far as I know). When I am to test fly my Onex for aerobatics (spin tests) I am required to wear parachute. Many people wear chutes when flying aerobatics even though it is not required. A parachute is to aircraft as a life west is to boating.
It’s meant to be physically quite difficult to exit a spinning or structurally damaged aircraft – is there any reason you rarely see ballistic parachutes on aerobatic aircraft, as it’s always seemed to me that something that avoids the need to exit the plane would be particularly beneficial. Maybe it’s a weight thing.
I absolutely see where Silvaire’s coming from, but there are a lot of adaptations that aren’t particularly heavy and would seem to have some benefit. e.g. airbags, honeycomb in seats or impact absorbing foams, kevlar rather than carbon in passenger compartments. And just a little attention to detail re. cockpit layout and whether instrument panels are going to break your legs etc… 5 point harnesses rather than lap belts.
Fuel tanks in cockpits make me feel uneasy and the Robinson story doesn’t reassure me.
Although I disagree with the way this article has sensationalised selective facts to fit their argument, I cannot ignore some of the home truths contained within it.
I think we as owners and pilots gloss over many shortcomings in light aircarft that we no longer tolerate in other aspects of our lives.
I agree with Peter, that some of the engineering flaws like fuel indication are pitiful, and underlie an arrogance by manufacturers which would drive other modern day industries out of business.
My lawnmower has a better fuel measuring system in it than my Piper, who incidentally have just reluctantly released version 3 of the same crappy float design for the Malibu, and happily dumped me with the expense of buying and installing it after v2 failed 18 months in service. No apology, or acknowledgement they got it wrong before. just slap this one in and see if it is any better.
It is really embarrassing trying to tell non pilot passengers to ignore the waving fuel gauge and low fuel alarm, as “just one of those things you know”, before I launch them skywards.
Viewing substandard engineering through nostalgic rose tinted glasses does not detract from the fact it is inexcusable, and dangerous.
E
