Why is General Aviation declining?

the oldest Ovations for a start are around 10 years old

As a Mooniac you ought to know that the oldest Ovations are over 20 years old.

I will call someone a snob who will park his shiny new plane next to someone else’s pride and joy and then make derogatory remarks about it, or someone who will tell people who ask about airplane ownership that anything below a 250k airplane is not worthwile or even worse, that people who can’t afford that should not be in GA altogether!

That must rank really high in the list of the most absurd things posted here, ever.

I have talked to enough people who took the advice of such folks and shied away.

So neither you have directly met any of the above types of people, he?

However, there are other factors as well, especcially in Europe. We keep loosing airports either to closures (the UK seems to be very badly affected by that recently) or to ultrahigh fees with the aim of driving GA out. Additionally to that, you have many smaller airfields which are privately operated and are ruled by 18th century feudalist types so they are not really infrastructure but simply playgrounds for a restricted number of folks. That is wrong and that is one of the reasons why people are drawn off. Travelling in an airplane is only interesting if there is the infrastructure to match what you want to do. Currently that is still a manageable problem in most parts, but that may change. I don’t want to imagine what would happen in the EU if e.g. Schengen gets thrown out, as it appears to be quite likely. Comparing that with the infrastructure available in places like the US, and you see why we have a problem. PPR, grass runways which can’t be used year round, airports with ridiculous low yearly useage number caps (Oberschleissheim comes to mind) or others where a fully grown IFR airport is used by one company alone and locks everyone else out. These are things which need to change.

You know, on the one hand, you keep criticizing people for supposedly advising people against buying old / cheap aircraft, stating that it is no good for the future of GA.
On the other hand you do much the same; you discourage people from flying with your permanent negativity on regulatory / airport aspects, it defies belief.

mh wrote:

There are plenty …..

This has nothing to do with certification. Certification is only a process to “assure” a part is built according to a specific design, and to keep a paper trail of materials and processes. Certification does not assure the part actually is a good part or even the best part. It also severly prevents improvements – unless you can throw in the money for a new certification process, which is the main problem, the price goes through the roof.

There are other ways to obtain the same “quality” but that also takes into account the need for flexibility and technological improvements. A simple industry standard will do that.

Also. If you actually read that article, you will see that the accidents are not due to mechanical failure, buy due to pilot error caused by being unfamiliar with the aircraft and the systems and the performance.

Coolhand wrote:

But be aware that the non-certification does not ensure you the opposite!

No, of course not. There are very capable engineers working at non-certified aircraft. But you have to know more to spot dangerous designs and might be caught off guard about developing problems. That can not be asked from everyone who wants to fly to be able to spot all those potential hazardous items.

Coolhand wrote:

Probably all the non-certified types meets de facto all the important requirements.

Coolhand wrote:

In fact, certification acts nowadays as brake to innovation and it’s a burden, much more than a desirable thing for small, non complex in engineering sense, airplanes.

You have to differentiate: Are you talking of certification specifications or about showing the compliance? There are certainly some items where the certification process is overboarding, but showing compliance of the basic airframe or type design surely isn’t one of them. And this isn’t the part, where many advances are made anyway. I can’t speak for electronics, avionics isn’t my core competence, but to make certification processes responsible for the decline of aviation is certainly aiming at the wrong target.

Peter wrote:

I am very reliably informed that boats are very effective for the, ahem, “social” side

And aircraft are very good for the flying side… Besides you don’t want to be on board a sailboat more than a couple of days in a row unless you love sailing.

LeSving wrote:

Certification does not assure the part actually is a good part

Yes, it is. Design certification assures that a designed solution works as specified.

Also. If you actually read that article, you will see that the accidents are not due to mechanical failure,

Mind if I read that out to you?

“Over half of the accidents were precipitated by mechanical events, which were mainly complete or partial engine failures. Following the amateur-built phase one test period, mechanical failures were still significantly more common when compared with factory-built aircraft. "

Besides, handling qualities, too, are part of an airframe certification. In-flight stability and manoeuvrability are part of this, as well as ergonomics and reliability.

It is true, planes like the Lanceair, Glasair, all the Vans, the Falco and other popular kits are good aircraft. But they are because of good engineering, not because of some lack of certification. There isn’t one ounce “technological advance” within an RV airframe. There isn’t one gram technological advance in a C42. There is no innovation in a Sonex design. They would have been possible 70 years ago and their success is largely based on providing good service to the builder, having a good basis to work with in the first place and being well documented. And on top of that they seem to be fun aircraft to fly.

mh wrote:

which were mainly complete or partial engine failures

Please read on, you won’t find that dangerous or poorly designed aircraft was the cause, which was a surprise even for the NTSB and the FAS, but also one of the main findings. I have read that article and posted it on this forum more than a year ago.

Engine failures are caused by some failures in the fuel system, and are often just poor maintenance rather that poor design, but of course with room for improvements.

If you are going to be “scientific” about it, then you also must be honest.

So these owners can build their own planes, but cannot maintain them afterwards?

There are many details affecting engine operations – just think how long it took Mooney to optimize the parameters like engine cooling in some models.

LeSving wrote:

Please read on, you won’t find that dangerous or poorly designed aircraft was the cause,

Actually, nothing of what you just wrote is part of the linked article. poor design has so many potential outcomes, that even LOC-I may result from it, rather than just inexperience itself. In that context, I think you might reconsider imputing dishonesty on me. If you have a better or more verbose study, I will gladly read it, and if the case is made that certification had indeed no safety impact – again, what I doubt based on what I witness – I may very well be able to change my stance. But not by calling me dishonest.

And probably not in this thread.

mh wrote:

Actually, nothing of what you just wrote is part of the linked article

Ahh, sorry, wrong report. It is this report from the USA I meant:

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1201.pdf

What the NTSB Found in This Study
The study compared the accident experience of E-AB aircraft with that of similar
non-E-AB general aviation aircraft over the last decade. A detailed analysis was also conducted
of the 224 accidents, involving 227 E-AB aircraft, that occurred during 2011.1
These analyses
revealed the following factors defining E-AB aircraft accidents:

E-AB aircraft account for a disproportionate number of total accidents and an even
more disproportionate share of fatal accidents when compared with similar non-E-AB
aircraft conducting similar flight operations.

Accident analyses indicate that powerplant failures and loss of control in flight are the
most common E-AB aircraft accident occurrences by a large margin and that accident
occurrences are similar for both new and used aircraft.

Structural failures have not been a common occurrence among E-AB aircraft.

In comparison with similar non-E-AB aircraft, a much higher proportion of accidents
involving E-AB aircraft occur early in the operational life of the aircraft.

A similarly large proportion of E-AB aircraft accidents occur shortly after being
purchased by a subsequent owner. For example, 14 of the 224 study accidents
during 2011 occurred during the first flight by a new owner of a used E-AB aircraft.

Through further analysis of the accident record and the results of an EAA survey of
E-AB aircraft owners and builders, the study also found:

The majority of E-AB aircraft are now built from commercial kits, rather than from
purchased plans or original designs.

Pilots of E-AB aircraft, whether involved in accidents or not, have similar, or higher,
levels of total aviation experience than pilots of non-E-AB aircraft engaged in similar
general aviation operations.

Pilots of E-AB accident aircraft, on average, had significantly less flight experience in
the type of aircraft they were flying than pilots of non-E-AB aircraft.

Finally, study analyses identified the following key issue areas to explain these findings
and recommended actions to improve E-AB aircraft safety.