4 ms·

> It feels like the real problem in this industry is lack of competition. There’s a chicken and egg problem: planes are expensive because so few people buy them

> It feels like the real problem in this industry is lack of competition. There’s a chicken and egg problem: planes are expensive because so few people buy them, but so few people buy them because they’re expensive. Lack of competition is not the root cause. It's all the regulations. Certifying a new GA airplane takes a lot of time, and costs a fortune. This translates to high development costs, and certification costs, and ALSO is a huge barrier to entry for new companies, and a significant barrier for existing companies to develop new modern designs. I could potentially muster enough resources to design and build an ultralight aircraft (that does not need any certifications), but a type-certified aircraft even as simple as a Cessna 152? Forget about it. You could argue whether those certifications are worth it for safety, e.g. by comparing Canada's much more generous ultralight aircraft max weight allowance compared to US, or looking at the change in accident rates in European countries that recently deregulated ultralight aircraft, but whether it's worth it or not, regulation is the single most impactful market force driving the cost of GA aircraft. Lack of competition is also sometimes directly enforced by the government. For example, several countries mandate the use of FLARM, a proprietary collision avoidance system for light aircraft. Governments gave this company a monopoly without requiring their protocol to be made interoperable, open source, and dis-encumbered from patents.

TylerE 2y ago
One key difference I see between something like this and an ultralight is the danger to people on the ground. A few thousand pounds moving at up to 200mph or so (potentially 300+ after structural failure) is a lot of kinetic energy.
- Aeolun 2y ago
  I’m fairly certain there’s little difference between being hit by a 2 ton car going at 100mph and a 4 ton aircraft going at 200mph. Either way you splatter.
  - 4gotunameagain 2y ago
    The clear difference is that cars have a limited, well known and clearly visible area where they are dangerous, planes could land on your face while you are having a picnic at the middle of the park.
- nikitaga 2y ago
  Definitely not "key". On the ground fatalities are very rare, perhaps 1%-2% of all general aviation fatalities [1]. One massive restriction on ultralight airplanes is that you can't carry passengers. Again, on paper, because of risk, but it ends up having some controversial effects. If you want to occasionally carry passengers, as many pilots do, you can't fly a cheap, simple, light, and slow ultralight aircraft. No, the regulations push you to fly a more expensive, complex, heavier, and faster one that is type-certified, but requires higher skill and currency (regularly recurring flight experience) to operate safely. Given that pilot error is far and away the main cause of general aviation crashes, that push does not seem very wise, safety-wise, even disregarding the question of costs. > A few thousand pounds moving at up to 200mph or so (potentially 300+ after structural failure) is a lot of kinetic energy. Also, FTR, Cessna 152, a type-certified two seater, weights 1670 lbs gross, cruises at 120mph, and if it ever hits the ground wrong, it very likely won't be because it broke up in mid-air and plummeted at terminal velocity onto someone's house, but because the pilot stalled it at low altitude while turning from base to final, crashing onto airport property or an empty field nearby. [1] See table 10 in the accident statistics spreadsheet here: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/Pages/research.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/Pages/research.aspx
  - denton-scratch 2y ago
    > One massive restriction on ultralight airplanes is that you can't carry passengers. Again, on paper, because of risk, but it ends up having some controversial effects. If you want to occasionally carry passengers, as many pilots do, you can't fly a cheap, simple, light, and slow ultralight aircraft. Ineresting. I get a ride as a passenger in an ultralight two-seater. The pilot was a Vietnam vet. It was in Virginia, and we overflew part of the Great Dismal Swamp, which has alligators.
    - nikitaga 2y ago
      Nice! If it was a two seater, it does not legally qualify as an ultralight in the US, see FAR 103.1(a) [1]. Back in the day, some older ultralights were designed with a very wide seat ("loveseat"), that physically but not legally allowed the pilot to take a passenger. Not sure if that's the case here. If the aircraft actually had two distinct seats, one clearly intended for a passenger, then it may have been a homebuilt aircraft, registered in the "experimental" category (FAR 21.191). Just like ultralights, these also operate without a type certificate, but upon completion of the build, the builder needs to provide a bunch of logs / photos / etc. documenting the construction process for the FAA to approve the aircraft for flights. Because such aircraft are designed to be built/assembled mostly (51%) by regular people (not at the factory), they often look very basic, just like proper ultralights, but they can be heavier, faster, carry passengers, etc. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-103 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...
mattmaroon 2y ago
I do believe that’s a factor (and mentioned it further down) but there are shockingly few companies that build planes. The regulatory cost is amortized over the number of planes built. If people bought planes the way they buy cars, they’d cost far less. Hence the chicken/egg problem I mentioned.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > but there are shockingly few companies that build planes. Because the ones who try go bankrupt twice before they manage to certify their planes? If ever.
  - mattmaroon 2y ago
    Or because of mergers and acquisitions like every other industry.
    - indymike 2y ago
      Not really. Many companies simply can't stay on the field for 20-odd years to get an airframe approved.

TylerE 2y ago

One key difference I see between something like this and an ultralight is the danger to people on the ground. A few thousand pounds moving at up to 200mph or so (potentially 300+ after structural failure) is a lot of kinetic energy.

Aeolun 2y ago
I’m fairly certain there’s little difference between being hit by a 2 ton car going at 100mph and a 4 ton aircraft going at 200mph. Either way you splatter.
- 4gotunameagain 2y ago
  The clear difference is that cars have a limited, well known and clearly visible area where they are dangerous, planes could land on your face while you are having a picnic at the middle of the park.
nikitaga 2y ago
Definitely not "key". On the ground fatalities are very rare, perhaps 1%-2% of all general aviation fatalities [1]. One massive restriction on ultralight airplanes is that you can't carry passengers. Again, on paper, because of risk, but it ends up having some controversial effects. If you want to occasionally carry passengers, as many pilots do, you can't fly a cheap, simple, light, and slow ultralight aircraft. No, the regulations push you to fly a more expensive, complex, heavier, and faster one that is type-certified, but requires higher skill and currency (regularly recurring flight experience) to operate safely. Given that pilot error is far and away the main cause of general aviation crashes, that push does not seem very wise, safety-wise, even disregarding the question of costs. > A few thousand pounds moving at up to 200mph or so (potentially 300+ after structural failure) is a lot of kinetic energy. Also, FTR, Cessna 152, a type-certified two seater, weights 1670 lbs gross, cruises at 120mph, and if it ever hits the ground wrong, it very likely won't be because it broke up in mid-air and plummeted at terminal velocity onto someone's house, but because the pilot stalled it at low altitude while turning from base to final, crashing onto airport property or an empty field nearby. [1] See table 10 in the accident statistics spreadsheet here: https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/Pages/research.aspx https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/Pages/research.aspx
- denton-scratch 2y ago
  > One massive restriction on ultralight airplanes is that you can't carry passengers. Again, on paper, because of risk, but it ends up having some controversial effects. If you want to occasionally carry passengers, as many pilots do, you can't fly a cheap, simple, light, and slow ultralight aircraft. Ineresting. I get a ride as a passenger in an ultralight two-seater. The pilot was a Vietnam vet. It was in Virginia, and we overflew part of the Great Dismal Swamp, which has alligators.
  - nikitaga 2y ago
    Nice! If it was a two seater, it does not legally qualify as an ultralight in the US, see FAR 103.1(a) [1]. Back in the day, some older ultralights were designed with a very wide seat ("loveseat"), that physically but not legally allowed the pilot to take a passenger. Not sure if that's the case here. If the aircraft actually had two distinct seats, one clearly intended for a passenger, then it may have been a homebuilt aircraft, registered in the "experimental" category (FAR 21.191). Just like ultralights, these also operate without a type certificate, but upon completion of the build, the builder needs to provide a bunch of logs / photos / etc. documenting the construction process for the FAA to approve the aircraft for flights. Because such aircraft are designed to be built/assembled mostly (51%) by regular people (not at the factory), they often look very basic, just like proper ultralights, but they can be heavier, faster, carry passengers, etc. [1] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F/part-103 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-F...

mattmaroon 2y ago

I do believe that’s a factor (and mentioned it further down) but there are shockingly few companies that build planes. The regulatory cost is amortized over the number of planes built. If people bought planes the way they buy cars, they’d cost far less. Hence the chicken/egg problem I mentioned.

krisoft 2y ago
> but there are shockingly few companies that build planes. Because the ones who try go bankrupt twice before they manage to certify their planes? If ever.
- mattmaroon 2y ago
  Or because of mergers and acquisitions like every other industry.
  - indymike 2y ago
    Not really. Many companies simply can't stay on the field for 20-odd years to get an airframe approved.