> From a regulatory approach if they ever approve a new GA powerplant and something happens, they'll be considered responsible. I don't think this is the probl

> From a regulatory approach if they ever approve a new GA powerplant and something happens, they'll be considered responsible. I don't think this is the problem. GA is a fringe phenomenon anyway. Look at what happened with the 737MAX. The FAA hardly got any of the flak and they didn't even care enough to certify it themselves, they just let Boeing sign off on their own product. If something happens with a GA powerplant no way anyone would blame the FAA. It didn't even happen for the 737MAX where hundreds of people literally died. And for GA the damage/life-loss impact would be much much lower. It's just the cost, if you make 1000 jet engines a year that sell for $10 million each then yeah it's easily justifiable. If you sell 500 GA engines for $100k it's much harder. Look at Rotax for example. They're doing good business, their engines are much more modern than Lycoming and the like, they run on unleaded petrol, and they are reliable workhorses. But the ultralight market simply has much lower regulatory requirements. This is why innovation still happens. I think it's time to stop holding a 4-seater 100 knot cruise aircraft to the same standards as a 300 seater jet airliner. It'll be good for safety because people will actually use things designed in this century, good for the environment and good for aviation in general.