Let The Prognostifications Continue!

by ANN Managing Editor Rob Finfrock

The staff of ANN has looked into our crystal balls, and brushed up on our tarot-reading techniques, to determine our best guesses to what we consider the 10 Unanswered Questions of 2007, as we face the new year.

• Read Part One (1-5) Here

Hopefully, the new year will bring some much-needed answers...

6) What Does The Future Hold For The Regional Fly-In?

The year 2007 ended with some very disturbing news for the organizers of regional fly-ins... essentially, that the Experimental Aircraft Association could no longer afford to include those events on its insurance plan.

News surfaced December 15 the Southwest Regional Fly-In had cancelled its 2008 event, and that SWRFI officers and directors voted to ultimately cease operations. Event organizers told ANN the decision was due to EAA's decision to "no longer insure regional events," and that EAA would "cease branding regional fly-ins as EAA events."

EAA worked quickly to calm the resulting maelstrom of questions from the organizers and proponents of other regional events, and to reassure the pilot community other regional events shouldn't feel threatened. The EAA did acknowledge, however, that some changes were on the horizon... including, loss of EAA insurance for such fly-ins.

Before now, EAA arranged for insurance coverage for regional fly-ins as part of its overall av-insurance plan. Regional organizers would then reimburse EAA for their portion of insurance costs -- meaning, in essence, fly-ins benefited from paying the EAA's rates. A recent court case, though -- stemming from a July 7, 1999 fatal takeoff accident at the Northwest Regional Fly-In in Arlington, WA -- hit the EAA hard, when a jury slammed the organization with the bulk of a $10.5 million judgment in that accident.

As ANN reported, that judgment came despite significant evidence, including eyewitness accounts and the NTSB's Probable Cause report, the accident was the result of a departure stall, and was in no way due to any actions on the part of EAA... fly-in organizers... city or county personnel... in essence, no one but the pilot of the RV-6A, who, sadly, was lost in the crash.

"The damage award affected the evaluation of EAA's coverage in the insurance market and created a situation that, if not addressed, would lead to very significant and unsustainable increases in the cost of EAA's insurance coverage at the levels required for all of its programs," EAA said in a December posting on its website.

Unfair as it is, that judgment also explains why EAA is no longer particularly eager to explicitly label regional events as "EAA" fly-ins.

For its part, EAA says it will continue to support such events through more indirect means -- such as promoting the events in EAA literature and newsletters, and sponsoring workshops and forums. The organization will also offer limited help for events to secure outside insurance, by steering organizers to outside insurance providers.

"Fortunately, there are brokers and underwriters willing and capable of serving the regional fly-ins as independent events at what we anticipate will be affordable and sustainable rates," the group adds. "EAA will introduce the fly-in organizers to insurers that can independently provide quotes for this coverage."

Still, those rates are almost guaranteed to be significantly higher than the previous EAA-sanctioned premiums... a difference that will hit the already cash-strapped coffers of some smaller regional events VERY hard, and may well mean the demise of those fly-ins.

7) Will Lawsuits Never Cease?

It's no coincidence this comes immediately after ANN's concerns about regional fly-ins, because those worried about their local regional fly-in surviving the next few years have lawyers to "thank," pure and simple, for their concerns... a simple fact that may prompt those parties, if nothing else, to brush up on their Shakespeare.

Tort reform was supposed to provide the aviation world with a sigh of relief -- and while in some ways it HAS made a difference, we're still waiting for the real benefits that occur when attorneys stay out of the engine compartment, the cockpit, the cabin, the control tower... the list goes on.

Sadly, a predilection for all-too-eager ambulance-chasing may not be the worst threat lawyers pose to the very existence of general aviation. In his recent "Heartbreakers" missive, Jim said it best when he opined, "What's almost as disturbing as the suits themselves, is the "PR Dance" that precedes them... where lawyers seem able to say anything they want in order to garner sympathy and plant suggestions in the minds of the jury pool."

In other words, lawyers have realized the first shots in winning their cases against pilots, planemakers, or aviation organizations come not before the judge, but in the court of public opinion. As you well know, the general public is often frighteningly ill-informed about issues concerning aviation... and, they are ALWAYS willing to hear how an unfamiliar group or activity may put them at risk, even if that risk is nigh-infinitesimal. Or blatantly false.

As a slew of unjustified and uninformed lawsuits continue to be brought against respected planemakers like Cirrus and Cessna, and entities like EAA, lawyers will continue to stymie the sustained growth of GA. That's not open to debate. Where the question lies, is to what extent the flawed litigation system at work in the United States will damage the aviation community even further in 2008.

One final note... as pilots, we must do all we can to make sure these clowns suffer a decrease in their av-related business. How? By continuing to fly smart, and avoiding the very kinds of situations that led to many of the accidents that prompted such lawsuits. Consider that a personal request... we'll also enjoy the added benefit of living to fly another day.

8) Will Cessna Make Cirrus Regret NOT Buying Columbia?

It's a scenario that should give the marketing people at such companies as Piper, Diamond, and Cirrus fits: a highly-capable, VERY quick, and much-beloved airframe... that until recently was little-more than a niche player in the marketplace due to production limitations and, arguably, mismanagement on the part of its former overseas owners... now emboldened with the advertising, sales, and production might of that 800-lb gorilla of general aviation, Cessna.

Of course, hanging a Cessna sign outside the former Columbia Aircraft Manufacturing plant in Bend, OR won't magically bring production rates up to the levels of the venerable Skyhawk and Skylane lines -- and it's highly unlikely we'll ever see newly-renamed Cessna 350s and Cessna 400s flying off the ramp, as it were, at the rates Cirrus manages with its highly-popular SR series.

Make no mistake, though, Cessna intends to take a big chunk out of the latter's sales numbers with its acquisition of CAM. It likely will, too, especially as customers attracted to Columbia planes -- but who may have stayed away as the turmoil of that former company became evident -- slowly return to the Bend fold... nevermind the occasional 172 or 182 owner who will opt for a major upgrade to their aerial chariot of choice.

Cirrus, for one, had its chance. The company expressed interest early in bidding for Columbia, but pulled out of the running near the end when it became clear the cost of adapting the Columbia airframe with the Cirrus-signature ballistic parachute system would not be easy -- and prohibitively expensive, if in fact possible at all. The Duluth, MN planemaker also said the cost of ramped up high-rate production in Bend would bring significant costs, as would continued issues with Columbia's Evade deicing system.

Good points, all... and Cirrus officials would be the first to admit Textron-owned Cessna has far greater resources available to devote to solving Columbia's woes than they do. As a result, however, Cirrus essentially handed Cessna a stake in the marketplace for high-performance, technologically-advanced, composite-bodied aircraft.

One must wonder if the price of that decision will ultimately be higher, than if Cirrus would have purchased Columbia outright.

9) Will The LSA Market Show Some REAL Growth In 2008?

Brass tacks time, folks: the training revolution light sport was to represent, when the FAA created the sport pilot category in 2005, hasn't happened yet. Flight schools offering LSA training are still few and far between... and some which offered the option early have had mixed results.

For example... the flight school I flew from last year, while I lived in the DFW area, is now awaiting its third LSA, a CZAW SportCruiser -- after seeing its SportStar and Thorpedo both succumb to accidents, one of them serious. The school near where I live now, on the west side of Albuquerque, NM is still without an LSA offering, after its Flight Design CT landed hard last March.

Nor have scores of "affordable" (cough) aircraft brought appreciably greater numbers of new pilots into the fold. Let's face it... if you can't afford a $200,000 aircraft, chances are likely you won't be able to afford a $130,000 one, either. To find a new S-LSA below $100,000, you either need to search for a stripped model... or, resign yourself to flying an aircraft with its roots nearer to ultralights than conventional aircraft.

As for renting an LSA... if you can find one (again, no easy task) there is a cost advantage, though it's not a very significant one. My quick, informal survey of online prices indicate LSA rental costs throughout the country still average around $80-$100 per hour wet... certainly cheaper than what you'll spend to train in a newish Skyhawk, but arguably not enough of a difference that one might not opt to instead spend the extra $30 per hour for the larger, (again, arguably) more desireable aircraft, so long as the FBO is picking up fuel costs. As fuel prices continue to climb, though, that may well change.

If sport pilot isn't all it was played up to be at this point, at least it's not for a lack of choices. Pilots and flight schools interested in purchasing a new light-sport aircraft have a plethora of choices to select from. In addition to numerous homebuilt options for private customers, there are no fewer than 65 ASTM-approved S-LSA now available to potential buyers, with at least two more to be announced next week at the Sport Aviation Expo in Sebring, FL. (In the time it took me to write this, ANN learned of one new entry, the RANS S-19LS.) And, of course, the Cessna SkyCatcher is on the horizon.

Choice is good, don't get me wrong... but 65 planes? That number is absolutely ridiculous, especially as light sport continues to be a relative novelty in general aviation. There is no way the market will be able to sustain that many competitors.

Which leaves... well, what, exactly? What is the magic solution that will bring LSA into the mainstream? Is it the SkyCatcher, which should be deployed en masse throughout Cessna Pilot Centers within the next three years?

That may help... but in the end, nothing short of a drastic price reduction across the board will truly invigorate LSA. Don't hold your breath on that one, folks.

10) When Will NASA Admit It Can't Wrap Up Shuttle Missions By 2010?

Talk about looking at the glass as half-full. This week, NASA announced its plan to send the shuttle Atlantis on a repair mission to the Hubble Space Telescope in August of this year, one of six planned shuttle flights for 2008.

Meanwhile, Atlantis sits on the pad, over one month after NASA originally planned to send the orbiter on yet another construction mission to the International Space Station. A troublesome fuel sensor glitch -- a problem that's popped up on Atlantis before -- is to blame, and NASA engineers are working furiously to implement a temporary fix that would allow the orbiter to finally blast off sometime after January 24.

Given that NASA was only able to send three orbiters into space in 2007 -- it would have been four, had Atlantis launched on time -- many find it extremely unlikely NASA will come close to six launches in 2008. Based on the agency's past performance in the two-and-a-half years since Discovery lifted off, restarting the shuttle program after the loss of Columbia, the agency would be fortunate to launch four missions this year.

There are 11 missions remaining, including the shuttle on the pad now and the Hubble repair flight, to be completed ahead of the White House-mandated September 30, 2010 retirement of the shuttle fleet. Do the math... that means the agency will need to hit at least a four-launch-per-year total over this year and the next, and three missions in the first nine months of 2010.

NASA has accomplished such ambitious launch schedules before; in fact, the most active year, 1985, saw nine missions launched. More recently, the agency launched eight missions in 1997. NASA had a four-orbiter fleet to work with in 1985; in 1997, it only had three, same as now, as Endeavour underwent upgrades that year.

So, you could argue -- theoretically at least -- NASA should be able to hit its goal, maybe even with some breathing room. This assumes an absolute best-case scenario, however... something NASA appears to be banking heavily on, though "best-case" has never been a reliable assumption in space travel.

Will NASA be able to send 11 more shuttles spaceward in the next 33 months? Frankly, I doubt it. There are too many variables... too many things that can go wrong, on the pad and in the sky, with an aged fleet of obsolete spacecraft that were built to cost.

I'm not alone in fretting over the pressure NASA has had placed on it... nor am I alone in my concern about the agency's performance when it feels such pressure.

John Logsdon, chairman of the Space Policy Institute at The George Washington University and a member of the panel that investigated the 2003 Columbia disaster, recently stated another shuttle failure would not only result in the loss of a crew, and the permanent halting of the program... it would have lasting, damning consequences for manned spaceflight in the United States for at least the next several years.

"Every time we launch a shuttle, we risk the future of the human space flight program," he said. "The sooner we stop flying this risky vehicle, the better it is for the program."

Conversely, the less pressure NASA feels to launch as many shuttles as possible, in the least amount of time... the less chance there is of a rushed schedule leading to the kind of safety oversights that doomed Challenger, and Columbia.

NASA needs to face reality, and tell the White House it needs more time to do the job right, and as safely as possible, with the equipment at hand. That's not the scenario in place at the moment.

The President can explain to the Europeans, Russians and Japanese why the ISS will remain permanently unfinished if he doesn't grant that request.

FMI: Comments? Criticism?