E2CMaster

I wonder how much of it is liability and legal out of the price.

Would give me something else good to make the inlaws shut up, since they ask why I don't just buy a plane and fly for fun..

Half of the guys in my wife's family (Father, uncles, cousins, brothers) are either politicians, or lawyers. And most of them are personal injury/product liability types, whose shenanigans have driven a lot of costs up for everyone.

The other half are rednecks and lumberjacks. It makes the holidays interesting.

Timbo

I read an article many years ago in Flying magazine where they were interviewing the President of Cessna. He said at that time (and this was probably at least 25 years ago) they were considering stopping production of their C152's because the cost of Liability Insurance on the airframes was over $15,000, per airplane, coming off the assembly line. I think Piper stopped making little planes for awhile too, same reason.

Finally there was a cap put on the number of years out that an aircraft manufacturer could be held liable for an accident. Perhaps someone here has a better memory of what/when all that went down.

I know the LSA movement/rule was to lower the cost to get into flying, but a new LSA airplane will set you back nearly $100,000! I don't think that was the intent!

We in the USA have wayyy too many lawyers and lawsuits over...everything. Slip on a wet sidewalk? SUE SOMEBODY!

Crash your car into a telephone pole?

SUE the TOWN that put that stupid pole there!

In about 1986 I was based down in MIA flying a Pitts S2 on my off days with Bill Thomas out of the Tamiami airport. There was a business man there who had bought a Pitts S1 to compete with. BUT...this nit wit also liked to go out to practice with a "Competition Fuel Load" i.e. just enough fuel to get to the practice area, fly a couple 4 minute sequences, and come back.

When questioned by some other acro pilots about his lack of fuel, he said, "I want it to fly just like it will in the contests, so I want as little fuel on board as possible..."

Well, one day his luck ran out. He stayed out too long, was going straight up to do a hammerhead when the engine quit, he went over on his back and spun in, inverted I think. I saw the photos afterwards, the airplane was flat, as if a giant had just stomped on it. Even though he was wearing a parachute, he didn't try to jump out, so he was very dead.

Of course his wife sued Christian Industries, the builder of the Pitts Special. Why? Because her lawyer said the Pitts didn't have a fuel gauge that would read accurately in every phase of acrobatic flight! Especially when going straight up...

I don't know what the outcome of the lawsuit was, if it was dismissed or if she got money, but I do know that Pitts started installing a different type of fuel gauge not long afterwards. And I'm sure the price of a new Pitts went up as well.

E2CMaster

I remember talking to a Lycoming rep years ago, and I got a similar reply as to why the engines are so out of sight, even factoring in low production numbers and better quality raw materials. A lot of it is liability. I'm not sure if Lycoming was outright buying policies on the motors, or just charging X more and holding on to it as a lawsuit reserve.

I do know about 18 years ago, I looked at making aftermarket swingarms for Motocross bikes, as I had made a few custom ones for me and friends, and one off orders.

The liability insurance alone made it so I would have had to triple the price, or move 1,000 units a year to make a modest profit, like 15%.

Timbo

Well if you are handy with a torch, you can certainly build a plane.

There lots of kits out there, some use smaller, non-Ly-Con engines, which are much more cost effective, if you just want to fly around locally.

Have you seen the magazine; Kitplanes? KITPLANES The Independent Voice for Homebuilt Aviation

Or join the Experimental Aircraft Assn: EAA - Homebuilders

Getting back on topic, the Safety aspect, with the cost of Avgas being $5.50/gallon, I doubt the guys who already have private airplanes are flying them very much. I know the weekend traffic at my little airport has dropped off quite a bit over the past 10 years.

If they aren't flying as much, two things will show up in statistics; less accidents (due to less planes in the air), but also less proficiency of the pilots who aren't flying.

So...be careful out there if you are only flying once every 6mo.

JamesNoBrakes

True, and personal responsibly goes out the window, as someone will sue on your behalf when you are a vegetable or dead, but consider this:

I have a pretty strong background in ergonomics and human factors, not the things you get in airline classes or CRM stuff, but actual human factors engineering at the graduate level. I notice many/most entrances/driveways top businesses with significant hazards and restrictions to visibility that almost guarantee a cyclist or walker/runner on the sidewalk will get nailed, as the car doesn't stop at the stop sign, but instead either stops and then pulls ahead 10-20 feet so they can actually see the road, or worst of all they just don't stop at the stop-sign and stop at that distance that is 10-20 feet beyond the stopsign. I see this all day long. There are usually stupid signs, bushes and all sorts of other obstructions that negate the usefulness of the stopsign. The intention is that someone will stop, look both ways, then pull into traffic when it's clear. The reality is that you can't see jack **** from the stopsign, so due to human nature they will either ignore the improperly designed system, or use it improperly, either stopping well after the stopsign, or stopping, then pulling forward and stopping (usually while looking in the opposite direction they intend to be traveling momentarily, so if they will be turning right, they are probably looking left, not straight, and certainly not right).

So now, because of the obstructions that were allowed to be built up around the sign, intersection, and so on, and the fact that the "system" gets used improperly because it was designed and built improperly, some runner, cyclist, or other person, dies as a result. Oh, it looked like the car was stopping, but there was some glare and you couldn't quite see the person's face. What, you should be able to avoid the car? Easier said than done, those same obstructions hide the cyclist, jogger, etc. Those cars can move a lot faster than a walker or cyclist can react. They assume that the automobiles will follow the proper rules, stop at the stopsign, then proceed when it's safe. Is that unreasonable? The "responsibility" circle kind of goes back full circle, as a lawsuit is "punishment" for someone that didn't take the proper responsibility in the first place...

Unfortunately, the "unreasonable" part all to often is expecting people to take reasonable steps before something happens, to design the system properly, to not let greed get the best of them, to ensure the proper safety checks are designed into the system, even though they may not seem to offer any monetary benefit at the time. So the only recourse left is to sue, with the penalty so high it never happens again. This is idealistic of course and in the real world it seems to come down to how much "power" one wields and how good their lawyers are.

Many of the lawsuits on engine manufacturers and others are absolutely ridiculous. Pilots that were drunk or that grossly mismanaged their engine or demonstrated gross negligence. There should be reasonable limits, but by the same token there is usefulness in litigation, as it's often the only recourse to "fix" something that is blatantly wrong. If anything, this is systemic of a much larger problem in our society, which is that we want everything, we want it now, we want it better than it was for the last people, and we want it cheaper.

Timbo

I agree James. The problem is, humans cannot engineer human error out of any system that is designed, built, installed and operated by...

Humans.

I think you last sentence sums up a big part of why flying 'starts' are down, and it ties into what I said earlier about the internet as well. I see the same thing with sailboat racing.

People are now so used to clicking on Google or Amazon, and getting what they want, right now, that the thought of investing a whole lot of time, money, sweat and tears into learning to do something like flying or sailing is not very appealing to them.

Both can be expensive to get into, and both require months and years of study and practice if you want to be good at it.

I think that's why 95% of the people who start flying or sailing, drop out before they really get good at it.

I hear this from people when I'm explaining flying or sailing;

"It takes too long..." Or "It costs too much." Or both.

Time and money, the two things we all need more of!

USMCFLYR

JNB -

You've been to the FAA's safety/accident prevention training.
Aren't aviation mishap statistics generated as a percentage per 100,000 hrs of flying? So whether it takes 3 months or 6 months to get to 100,000 of flying - the mishap rate woud still be statistically correct.

Timbo

How do they track the 100,000 hrs. in the GA world? Who reports the time they put on their private plane? And to whom do they report it?

It would be interesting to see how many days/months it's taking to amass the 100,000hrs. in the GA community, and compare today's number to years past, see if there's less GA flying going on now, same, or more, per month, then tie that to the accident rates.

USMCFLYR

I have no idea. That is why I was asking.
Do they track any metric like number of flights or hours or anything other than just the number of accidents/mishaps/deaths?
The original article I referenced said they realized that flying was down and that might be part of the reason for better safety statistics, but was that using common sense that the weather had been so poor that there just had to be less flying? What if the weather was a little bit better - would they make the same presumption?

cardiomd

I thought you guys did too, but us GA types put our total hours when we obtain/renew Class 3 medicals, which goes to the FAA and ultimately the Nall report. The FAA tallies and reports it.

When an accident happens the pilots logbooks are located if recoverable or obtainable (of course, they don't have to be in the aircraft). If they are not found the flight hours of last medical is substituted. This whole process is outlined in a few accident reports if you read them.

The GA rate is around 6 per 100,000 and seems to hover there. Read "The Killing Zone" if you want interesting stories and a good feel for what kills the GA guys. There is a lot you can do to minimize your own risk.

I was just really surprised to see the opinion "oh flying is sooo dangerous" from presumed pilots here. Unforgiving to carelessness? Yes, absolutely. Dangerous? Well, it depends, and is largely up to you.