Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnhess | Hacker News Reader

What's wild is that a lot of that equipment (or barely newer versions) is still standard fare at flight schools. It's possible to get a fancy glass panel if you look. But you'll probably still fly a 172.

It'd be nice if the regulations would make designing clean sheet airframes a viable business again.

View on HN

Consider part 43, appendix A: It is legal for an owner to change a worn out tire. It's also legal to service wheel bearings. If, however, in the course of reassembly a new brake rotor or pads are installed instead of the old ones, illegal work has been performed. Part 43 also says nothing of actually inflating tires, so it's unclear— in the letter of the law— whether or not filling flat tires is approved.

There's probably an advisory circular around somewhere that expounds on this, but it illustrates well the over regulated[0] nature of GA in America[1] where the results of regulation do not necessarily effect safety. We have 50 year old (on average) airframes flying around with engines designed in the 1940s (on leaded fuel, no less). It costs $40,000+ to rebuild these engines, due largely to laws about who can work on them and the monopolies on who can provide which engines. It's only like this because the FAA is, for whatever reason, unable to work to a real solution.

[0] This is a specific complaint, not an argument for a general rollback

[1] Yes, I am aware that aviation is even more regulated elsewhere-- and that costs are increased while participation is decreased in those places

A refreshing exception to this is the Experimental Amateur-Built (EAB) category, basically home-built aircraft. Subject to a different set of regulations, the owner or pilot of an EAB category airplane has surprisingly wide latitude to install equipment, perform maintenance, experiment with the power plant, and so on. I can't so much as run a USB charger out to the panel of a Cessna 172, but I can make major engine and airframe modifications to an EAB airplane and do the annual condition inspection if I was the builder.

Consequently, a lot of the innovation that's happening in General Aviation, including avionics, safety systems, ignition and fuel systems, is happening in the EAB world, with the Certified world catching up later.

With pretty onerous restrictions on how fast the plane can go, how powerful the engine can be, and once sold, a lot of those restrictions on Certified aircraft apply to you as the new owner.

Everything that you just said is incorrect, at least in the USA, where the overwhelming majority of all E-AB aircraft are built and operated.

There are no airspeed restrictions on experimental amateur built aircraft, other than the 250kt limit under 10,000 feet that applies to all aircraft.

There is absolutely no restriction on engine power output for E-AB aircraft.

The only significant restriction for the second owner of an experimental amateur built aircraft is that they cannot get a repairman’s certificate for the aircraft. This means they will have to hire a licensed A&P mechanic to perform the annual condition inspection. Other than that they can still maintain or modify the aircraft exactly as the original builder could.

I refer you to FAA advisory circular AC 20-27G for further info.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/...

People are always surprised when I tell them I want to defund the FAA. They have irreparably harmed a beloved hobby of mine for generations. The list is quite frankly endless.

They're certainly done a lot of harm but also a lot of good. Regulations are written in blood.

Lives that would have been saved with innovative improvements are not accounted for.

Because everybody can just pull out a number for those lives out of their noses, while lives lost are pretty easy to quantify.

The same goes for root cause analysis behind those lives lost, clear cut for actual losses, fuzzy for hypothetical losses.

You’re arguing for a no-regulations free for all?

Not the OP, but we can probably do better than this:

https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2011/06/16/revitalizing-th...

So, someone complained about some audit. Like almost wveryone else who went through whatever audit, myself included at time (I went through EASA audits, SOX audits, non-SOX accounting audits, customer audits). If people wouldn't complain, the audit would be to lax to begin with.

In the EU pilot-owners can self-certify their aircraft for unleaded fuel, provided that the engine is unmodified and that its manufacturer has approved the use of Avgas UL 91. Print an AFM supplement page and put on new fuel quality placards and you can release the aircraft to service yourself. EASA has a set of "standard changes and standard repairs" (CS-STAN) that offer simplified procedures for some common modifications and repairs and this is one of them. CS-STANs have been around for about a decade now.

In the US you still need to go and purchase a supplemental type certificate for your specific aircraft type for this, I believe.

GA is a much smaller phenomenon in Europe than it is in the US but that's not because regulators are out to make it more complicated.

I guess most of it is because these light aircraft just won't die. These are simple, well built machines, and treated well and with the appropriate maintenance, they can last essentially forever. Because they have been in use for so long, we know just about every failure mode, and they were build in a time where the idea of safety was comfortable margins and aerodynamic stability. It results in robust machines suitable for training.

Sure, they are slow and inefficient, but these are not airliners where the point is just to get passengers to their destination as effectively as possible. Here, flying is the entire point, who cares if it is slow? And the fuel costs are less than buying and maintaining a more modern airplane when you already have a 50 year old but still usable 172.

Clean sheet airframes exist of course, like carbon fiber, high performance machines, good for those who want high performance, but usually, that's not a priority for flight schools.

A 172 might be a luxury. I flew mostly C152's during my flight training. The only times I got to fly a 172 was when my instructor had to fly morning traffic patrol and invited me to fly for him.

Nicer airplane, though. Nowhere as cramped as a 152.

I remember walking up to a 152 for my first flight lesson, peering inside, and then laughing. You can just reach over and touch the other side of the plane without leaning inside, it's only as wide as your arm is long (well, I suppose it depends on your arms, but you get the idea).

I got my pilot licensce last year.

Cessna 150.

But had a GPS and ADSB in/out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com