4 ms·

But the problem with that is not so much that it creates a market for old airplanes but rather that airplane certifications don’t expire – if the 50’s planes yo

But the problem with that is not so much that it creates a market for old airplanes but rather that airplane certifications don’t expire – if the 50’s planes you allude to had to obey the same standards as new planes (after some grace interval of e.g. 10 years), the problem could be solved?

microcolonel 8y ago
> But the problem with that is not so much that it creates a market for old airplanes but rather that airplane certifications don’t expire It seems to me that the problem here is that new airplanes are cost prohibitive. Your solution to light aircraft safety is to make the majority of light aviation illegal or too expensive to function, like solving the problem of unstylish watches by outlawing anything cheaper than a Rolex. People seem to have the impression that GA has to be safer than driving, or safer than some other benchmark, before the safety level is acceptable. I am perfectly willing to accept some risk (the raw rate of fatality per ground mile is about 20x higher for GA vs. driving) even as a passenger, and I don't see why the FAA should be in the business of determining what risk is acceptable to passengers. I think the FAA's primary responsibility should be to the broader public, who experience the same risks on the ground regardless of how much or little GA they buy, rely on, or associate with. Some of the FARs make a lot of sense in this regard, for example the rules for single-occupant ultralight aircraft (including powered paragliders), and ideally a similarly pragmatic approach can be applied to other questions in aviation regulation.
- adrianN 8y ago
  When planes crash they might fall on houses. That seems like a good reason to me to make them a lot safer than cars.
  - microcolonel 8y ago
    Well, also consider that you don't make GA safer than driving by regulating it. A lot of GA can be compared with the kind of unconventional driving done on remote or logging roads. GA is pretty safe where driving is also safe.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Luckily, when cars crash (or just dride) they never hit anything like houses or people. Oh wait ...
Cthulhu_ 8y ago
You say that, but the same can be said about cars - you can still drive a car from the 50's, even if it no longer meets current-day safety standards (notably, rollover protection and environmental standards). Older vehicles, be it cars or planes, will retire naturally because maintenance eventually becomes prohibitively expensive.
- candiodari 8y ago
  This ignores that, unlike cars, 1950s planes are built from scratch today. Meet the most popular aircraft in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 The only updates are new engines, the aircraft's control is not just analog, it's literally "planks moved by pulling on wires".

microcolonel 8y ago

> But the problem with that is not so much that it creates a market for old airplanes but rather that airplane certifications don’t expire It seems to me that the problem here is that new airplanes are cost prohibitive. Your solution to light aircraft safety is to make the majority of light aviation illegal or too expensive to function, like solving the problem of unstylish watches by outlawing anything cheaper than a Rolex. People seem to have the impression that GA has to be safer than driving, or safer than some other benchmark, before the safety level is acceptable. I am perfectly willing to accept some risk (the raw rate of fatality per ground mile is about 20x higher for GA vs. driving) even as a passenger, and I don't see why the FAA should be in the business of determining what risk is acceptable to passengers. I think the FAA's primary responsibility should be to the broader public, who experience the same risks on the ground regardless of how much or little GA they buy, rely on, or associate with. Some of the FARs make a lot of sense in this regard, for example the rules for single-occupant ultralight aircraft (including powered paragliders), and ideally a similarly pragmatic approach can be applied to other questions in aviation regulation.

adrianN 8y ago
When planes crash they might fall on houses. That seems like a good reason to me to make them a lot safer than cars.
- microcolonel 8y ago
  Well, also consider that you don't make GA safer than driving by regulating it. A lot of GA can be compared with the kind of unconventional driving done on remote or logging roads. GA is pretty safe where driving is also safe.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Luckily, when cars crash (or just dride) they never hit anything like houses or people. Oh wait ...

Cthulhu_ 8y ago

You say that, but the same can be said about cars - you can still drive a car from the 50's, even if it no longer meets current-day safety standards (notably, rollover protection and environmental standards). Older vehicles, be it cars or planes, will retire naturally because maintenance eventually becomes prohibitively expensive.

candiodari 8y ago
This ignores that, unlike cars, 1950s planes are built from scratch today. Meet the most popular aircraft in history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_172 The only updates are new engines, the aircraft's control is not just analog, it's literally "planks moved by pulling on wires".