Could GA Return The Favor?

Commentary And Analysis By Gene Yarbrough

Wish I were, wish I might, the FAA is nowhere in sight. As congress has failed to pass legislation to continue funding the FAA, Airventure finds itself previously, unimaginably short of FAA representation. This strange turn of events has created a buzz of jokes and musings of what would happen if the FAA truly weren't in general aviation on the grounds of Wittman Field. Many propose a utopia of foregone freedoms while others are fearful airplanes will spontaneously fall out of the skies because BIG BROTHER is not strong-arming regulatory enforcement.

All kidding aside, the fact that the FAA has been temporarily crippled begs the question, “Could general aviation survive without FAA oversight as we currently know it?”

Looking around the landscape for a comparable surrogate finds the Light Sport Aircraft category doing quite well left to its own devices. Certainly there is the potential for mishandling within this self regulated area of GA. But by all currently measurable indices, LSA is policing itself in a respectable manner with some sense of integrity. There have been no media reports of gross abuse as yet, and there seems to be enough threat within the legal system to promote continued maintenance of high quality standards.

This is not to suggest that the FAA be removed from GA entirely, but the notion that GA, or at least certain parts such as personal aviation (being more clearly defined as that part of aviation that is intended primarily for recreational or personal use not intended for commercial operations) could regulate itself with less direct Federal oversight may not be novel -- but does not enjoy any organized consciousness. Perhaps this brief respite from FAA presence will give the GA community the ability to demonstrate that we are capable of manufacturing and operating aircraft safely on our own recognizance. 

The FAA has a duty to the public at large to ensure that all aspects of aviation are safe and reliable. This is a noble charge and the FAA has done an admirable job at making the USA a leader in commercial aviation safety. Coupled with the NTSB, the FAA has brought proper and necessary regulatory mandates and continues to require airlines to maintain the highest standards which have greatly improved safety for the traveling public and rightly so. However; the FAA has not differentiated, well, what are appropriate standards for GA aircraft. While it is wrong to suggest that GA should not have high safety standards, a one size fits all approach is crippling the GA manufacturers’ ability to produce an affordable product.

In the current environment an aircraft manufacturer is required to test airframes to meet certain requirements that may, or in many cases do not, represent real world conditions for their product. A simple tube and fabric aircraft does not operate in the same environment as a pressurized cabin class executive aircraft, but the regulations do not differentiate between the two sufficiently. ASTM regulations governing LSA aircraft are written in such a way as to allow the manufacturers to apply only those regulations pertaining to their product, but more importantly they give the manufacturers the latitude to show compliance via self testing, or engineering analysis, or even flight testing. Not having to go through the FAA, or DER/DAR, to get approval for every design change greatly reduces the cost of bringing a product to market. Some estimates to develop and certify a new 14CFR Part 23 aircraft, do all the required testing and conformance, and get approval from FAA are exceeding millions of dollars. This is a huge and unsustainable burden for GA airplane companies.

Ever wonder why airplanes cost so much compared to cars and yet are eons behind in technology? Look at the cost of certifying a new design juxtaposed to the numbers of units that will be built and the math becomes clear. Production numbers are a function of the marketplace but millions more could afford a $50,000 airplane than a $250,000 airplane. If the GA producers could put a million units into the field per year new technologies in manufacturing would have to be employed as a function of necessity to meet demand and economies of scale would cut per unit costs by orders of magnitude. Rather aircraft and their sundry components are hand built which limits manufacturing technologies and certification hassles quench innovation. Still the costs of meeting regulations impose a huge cost per unit, product liability insurance usually takes about half of the retail price and the manufacturer is left to eke out what marginal profit they can. Redirecting the regulatory burden to the manufacturers and letting the free market and legal hounds hold everyone accountable seems to work so far in LSA.

Shifting the regulatory paradigm to meet the LSA model is certainly plausible, but would take a huge and organized effort on the part of pilots, manufacturers, and consumers of GA as a whole. Perhaps this brief absence of FAA presence has sparked a glimmer of what could be. The golden age of personal general aviation has waned according to most, but maybe, just maybe if enough people were to come together towards a singular focused goal we could make a difference in the right direction. Aero-News Network is beginning this initiative……stay tuned.

Editor's Note: DOT Secretary Ray LaHood and FAA Adminitrator Randy Babbitt are scheduled to make their annual visit to AirVenture Thursday ... despite the furloughs and lack of a short-term or long-term funding mechanism for the FAA.

FMI: Comments/Questions? Let Us Have Them