|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Four long years ago, I wrote an article in Air Facts Journal titled, “The $20 an hour Cessna 172 Experiment” (November 25, 2020) about our efforts to reduce operating costs for piston aircraft while eliminating the need for leaded gas. Our goal was to demonstrate that there are practical solutions to the challenges facing general aviation (GA), specifically its piston engine segment, which could potentially come from small, passionate entities and even individuals. The main culprit for lowering cost and emissions was the engine, so we began a challenge of finding a practical engine solution for legacy airframes and found a rather “well-traveled” C172 with a tired engine for a test bed.
A quieter, less expensive engine that burns unleaded fuel—what could go wrong?
Our solution involved developing a more affordable, environmentally-friendly, modern engine to directly replace existing piston engines. The focus of our mission was to eliminate the need for leaded fuel, increase the availability of older aircraft in rental fleets that most pilots could afford to rent or buy, and overall reverse the decline in GA participation. This project was self-funded, driven by a small team of passionate and highly qualified engineers and pilots who believed that practical solutions existed for the issues facing GA.
This first article outlined mostly the how and why we took on the project as a challenge to demonstrate that practical solutions exist. At the time, many legacy piston aircraft were being scraped for parts when owners faced the cost of overhauling the engine. As the legacy engine was not only the most expensive part of the ownership and operating cost, it was also why we needed leaded gas, as well as the incompatibility with modern emissions controls.
So, finding a cost-friendly solution to replace the archaic engine would solve many problems that not only keep GA frozen in the 1950’s, but lowering the cost to participate in GA for far more inspiring pilots….which is the real solution for saving GA. Additionally, such a solution with the ability to directly replace the original engine on a legacy aircraft (average GA piston aircraft are almost 50 years old) would increase the GA rental fleets in flying clubs and small operators, and could significantly lower rental rates for the same airframe.
In addition to the first Air Facts article, AOPA and EAA published their own articles on our C172-V8 project, each also generating a tremendous amount of interest and overwhelming our inbox, requiring us to upgrade our website capacity. Most contacts requested information on ordering a firewall forward kit, and/or asking if we had kits for other types of piston aircraft, especially the C182, C210, C206 and Piper PA28 series. As the engine is software controlled like any modern engine, we could efficiently customize the same engine for different airframes rather quickly. We received interest from dozens of potential dealers and shops wanting to sell and install our engines worldwide.
Initially, our idea of offering a non-certified kit to convert older aircraft to experimental category for private owners or equity-based flying clubs ran afoul of a 1950’s FAA policy (not regulation). Many wanted to buy our experimental C172 and C182 firewall forward kit regardless of FAA issues, with many saying the FAA cannot violate you based on just a policy. But we did not want to sell anything that someone potentially could not get an airworthiness certificate for and be left fighting it out with FAA lawyers. We did reach out to an aviation industry attorney, but decided a fight with the $21B budgeted agency would be foolish. So, we decided to seek FAA supplemental type certificate (STC) approval to allow owners to swap their old airframes to our firewall forward engine kit.
We had a flying C172 aircraft that eliminated need for avgas, had modern emissions, and at a price point that would likely accelerate owners to convert to make a tangible difference in the short and long term. Our complete and all-new C172 and C182 firewall forward kit was a direct bolt-on conversion and cost less than a factory overhaul of the original engine, and cost less than half to operate, all while out-performing even the newest Cessna models that perform the same as their fifty-year-older siblings.
It was a logical progression, as there was clearly an interested market, at least based on inquiries. We also believed that others would be encouraged to follow us with more practical solutions, bringing modernization, innovation, and—most importantly—lower acquisition and operating costs necessary to reignite general aviation (GA) worldwide. Moreover, the FAA had long pronounced for alternative solutions to leaded avgas as well as to further reduce emissions. Our claims were not just theoretical as most other solutions the FAA was concentrating on, we had a real flying prototype with real data to prove it, and eager to discuss its potential with FAA departments required for us to continue development.
Unfortunately, it became clear that FAA leadership had no interest in supporting such a solution—whether as an experimental conversion for certified airframes or via a STC (a certification that would allow owners to replace their original engine with ours on certified aircraft)—regardless of the potential benefits. We never proclaimed to be ‘THE’ solution, but potentially a solution that could keep older aircraft economically flying in rental fleets, as well as incite others to follow with even more new and better solutions to reignite GA, and so on…
After years of making no progress with the FAA, and witnessing certain leaders use dubious and outright unethical methods to weaponize their bureaucracy, leaving no avenue for dispute, we were forced to shut the development down. It was evident that FAA leadership was unwilling to support any solutions that might revitalize GA unless such solutions came from a legacy manufacturer, one with FAA or political insider connections, or a company with the financial means to negotiate the FAA’s piston GA gauntlet.
We continued to receive too many requests for sales and updates on the projects to keep on top of, so I wrote another Air Facts article explaining why we shut the program down, “The $20/hour Cessna 172 experiment—Update“, October 31, 2022.
To be clear, early on in the regulatory process of obtaining our experimental, multi-purpose airworthiness certificate, we had nothing but encouraging and supportive FAA assistance at the Aircraft Certification Office (ACO), and Manufacturing and Inspection District Office (MIDO), which mostly oversees aircraft manufacturers.
Our experimental C172 proved itself capable of demanding flight training missions, with both private and commercial pilots training and successfully passing their FAA checkrides in our V8-powered C172, at a fraction of the cost compared to using stock C172 aircraft. Our high school student pilot earned her Private pilot wings at a cost of less than $3,800 including aircraft operating cost (fuel, engine reserves for 60 hours), FAA DPE fee, and 30 hours CFI instruction, all without burning a drop of leaded avgas.
We calculated that any C172 with our engine kit operating in a flying club could reasonably rent at less than $60/hour wet (including gas), which would make flight training and rentals more accessible to far more people with average Private pilot training of sixty (60) hours flight time and 30 hours CFI dual cost about $5,000… less than half that of renting same vintage C172 and burning avgas. It would also be a game changer for building time, or simply flying for the joy of flying for recreational pilots.
We felt we proved such practical innovations could be a catalyst for re-igniting GA, and likely ignite other small but passionate entities to follow with other long overdue updates to the piston fleet.
The update article sparked a wave of strong and encouraging comments (which make for great reading in the article’s comments section….maybe even better than the article itself), as well as a fresh influx of emails urging us to continue our efforts. The article was even named an Air Facts “Article of the Year,” and many readers expressed their frustrations with the FAA. Many offered well-meaning suggestions on how to navigate the FAA’s bureaucratic hurdles, some with well thought out potential solutions.
We deeply appreciate the interest so many readers showed for our efforts and passion, so we took the two top (practical and legal) suggestions and again tried getting an audience with FAA leadership to discuss the hurdles facing small entities trying to bring innovation and change in the piston GA sector. Because we couldn’t respond to all your emails, we wanted to share the results of our efforts using your recommendations in this final update for Air Facts readers.
I don’t want to bore readers with the obstacles already outlined in prior articles, but suffice to state that we couldn’t even get a call back from FAA officials over the last four years, or even receive a reply from formal appeal petition that prevented us from even continuing the development.
Our goal was simple: to have a direct meeting with FAA GA leadership to discuss the obstacles they place on small entities striving to make a difference in piston general aviation, and to share our experiences from the past four years. We hoped that such a dialogue could pave the way for others wanting to make a positive impact on piston GA and maybe even be enough to resurrect the Corsair project.
Here are your three suggestions, how we implemented each, and the results.
Our most common suggestion was to ask AOPA and EAA for help in obtaining an audience with FAA leadership to explain how the agency inhibits small companies from advancing GA innovation and modernization.
As long-time members of both organizations, we requested their assistance in securing a meeting with key FAA leaders responsible for small aircraft policy and certification. Both AOPA and EAA connected us with their government affairs liaisons, with whom we engaged through phone calls and emails in January 2024. Both stated they would contact relevant FAA departments to obtain a meeting or some contact.
After months of waiting with no updates, we followed up. Murray Huling, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs at AOPA, informed us he had not received a response from the FAA but would follow up. Weeks later, Mr. Huling relayed that FAA suggested starting our entire petition process over from scratch with a new petition and suggested AOPA provide a letter of support (essentially forget all our work and waiting over last three years and try again from scratch).
EAA’s FAA liaison, Tim Charpentier, got the same response eventually. When we again asked both to help secure a meeting with FAA policy, neither could. Restarting from scratch after four years of waiting was not an option—and we felt it was merely another attempt to delay the process. And again, no offer or desire to even discuss our experience. This was what we have experienced for last four years and it came as no surprise, but we were surprised FAA would do the same to the largest GA advocate organizations. If EAA or AOPA couldn’t get even a meeting, we had no chance…and we moved on.
Both AOPA and EAA had published articles about our project early on, generating considerable interest and inquiries. We reached out to their editors to propose an update article focusing on the challenges small companies face in developing GA solutions which may find the right reader with ability to force a meeting. The AOPA editor declined, while the EAA editor did not respond.
Having exhausted both the AOPA and EAA suggested option, we moved on to the next suggestion.
Second most suggestion: contact the FAA’s Policy and Innovation Division and the Small Aircraft Directorate (AIR-600). The division’s mission is to build partnerships with private companies and assist with regulatory issues in developing innovation. This actually seemed to us as a great recommendation and we were eager to see results, or at least secure a meeting.
I reached out via email directly to Pat Mullen, Manager of the Small Airplane Standards Branch (AIR-620), and Victor Wickland, Director of Policy and Innovation (AIR-601). I summarized our four-year experience navigating FAA challenges and formally requested a meeting to discuss the difficulties small companies face when attempting to innovate in the piston GA segment.
I promptly received an email from Mr. Wickland, which he copied to other department directors, stating that someone would contact me. As expected—consistent with my past experiences—no one ever did. After seven months, I sent a follow-up email. This time, I received a response to schedule a call. Mr. Wickland’s email included Casper Wang, Product Policy Manager for Emerging Aircraft, GA, and Rotorcraft. I later received an email from James Folz, Deputy Director of Compliance & Airworthiness (AIR-620), stating that someone from emerging technologies would reach out.
Shortly after, I spoke with James Clary, Program Manager for Emerging Technologies (AIR-611). He expressed interest in addressing our challenges and promised to get back to us with potential solutions and not to blow us off. Unfortunately, but true to form, we never heard from him again. After another four months, now about a year after my initial request, I sent another email with all directors on prior emails included, as well as copying FAA head leadership and the administrator, stating I never heard back and how amazed we are in FAA’s leadership ‘ignore policy’ when it comes to GA.
The only response was from Mr. Clary, who advised me to contact my local FSDO for help—despite the fact that FSDOs have no involvement in innovation or certification policy—but no information on what we discussed four months earlier. None of the FAA executives who were copied on the emails, from the administrator or his executive staff down, offered any assistance or reply.
In my follow-up and final email, I reminded Mr. Wickland and his colleagues that my request was merely to share our experiences, believing it would help the FAA understand the challenges small entities encounter trying to bring innovation and modernization to GA….the very purpose of the FAA innovation office efforts. I was not asking for special treatment, just a chance to highlight the systemic challenges within the FAA we and others face. This is that email:
In my email to you and Mr. Mullin a year ago, I asked only of you and related departments for the opportunity to share our experience as we believed it would be helpful to understand reasons that piston GA innovation is more likely to come from small entities as ours, and the FAA induced challenges such entities face. I was not asking for or demanding anything of you, Mr. Mullin or Mr. Clary, other than to merely share our challenges trying to work through a bias and arguably corrupt FAA culture when it comes to piston GA and small business trying to innovate a stale legacy segment of GA. I would suggest the mission in your FAA innovation efforts start with the leadership culture.
You win. As many before us, we gave up.
Again, no response. As a proponent for GA, I continue to remain woefully disappointed in FAA’s leadership’s culture when it comes to GA. As a tax payer, I get a bit irritated accepting that without the inside contacts or financial resources to obtain even a meeting with FAA public servants, most cannot regardless of the merits of what they may bring. As a moderate environmentalist, I felt outrage that such a large government agency continues to systemically protect the dismal status quo while protecting legacy engine manufacturers from competition, decades after all other engine segments have long evolved, especially considering proven technologies readily exist that could have made a significant difference in health, commerce, and a vital industry to our nation.
Unfortunately, the FAA ‘ignore’ policy has additional negative effects for small companies attempting to obtain investment to develop solutions. Potential investors for our project were more than concerned of FAA’s lack of interest and refusal to even return our calls. This was considered a significant risk factor by them, and understandably. The FAA’s innovation section was also developed to assist bringing innovation and investment to US programs. However, their lack, and I would say willful dereliction, further makes investing in GA seem even more risky beyond the civil liability risk and certification costs the segment is infamous for, not to mention the shrinking GA market size to produce worthwhile return on investment.
With no further replies from any of the many FAA officials we reached out to, including those we have formally requested responses from over last four years, we had no other options left. We considered this suggested solution a failure as well.
We do not like being someone that criticizes without at least offering potential solutions worth considering. So, I reached out and spoke with many in the GA sphere, from flight schools to repair shops, and asked what they believed piston GA needed to reverse its course. Most long time GA participants, myself included, believe for GA to survive there must be an industry and FAA meaningful effort in:
- Significantly reducing cost to fly legacy aircraft. The average age of the GA piston fleet is approaching 50 years. Legacy aircraft will remain the majority of the worldwide piston fleet for decades to come, and practical efforts must focus on reinventing the fleet. This is the path of least resistance for developing an affordable rental fleet. Focus must be to find methods to significantly lower ownership and operating cost to keep them economically viable, less expensive to maintain in replacement parts/components, especially obsolete parts; and less expensive methods to ‘certify’ non-critical replacement parts. The goal must be to keep the aging fleet flying at costs the majority of new GA pilots can afford with wider availability of flying clubs and other rental sources, as well as reduce the number of good planes parted-out solely for economic reasons.
- Developing methods to update legacy aircraft that not only lower cost, but increase safety and incorporates innovation. For example, replacing original mechanical instruments/gauges that are expensive to maintain or replace with just basic flat panel EFIS systems that are well proven in the experimental world. EAA was able to certify some non-certified/experimental EFIS systems for common certified aircraft types by working with FAA to obtain STC’s. This could eliminate antique vacuum systems and increase safety with larger sized attitude indicators, display of traffic; nearby airport depiction with glide radius; AoA warnings, more accurate fuel sensors and warnings; and weather orientation. Such non-certified systems could have additional limitation for use only for VFR operations, and/or IFR in VMC.
- Fast track needed safety enhancements for use in certified aircraft. Simple and proven solutions, such as low fuel warning alert, could make a real difference. Over 50% of fuel-related accidents are caused by simply running tanks dry and legacy fuel gauges are notorious for inaccuracy. Fuel exhaustion has been an FAA focus for decades, yet there has been no FAA outreach or encouragement to industry to develop practical solutions, or to ‘fast-track’ simple solutions for certification. Cars have had such “idiot” lights for decades that could easily be installed on aircraft (simply a float switch that grounds a bulb). Likewise, larger size attitude indicators significantly decrease spatial orientation compared to the 1940’s 3” vacuum gyros. Such simple, practical and long-proven solutions exist in mass and could have prevented many accidents and fatalities over the last few decades, as well as reduce insurance risk and rates which lowers ownership cost. A win-win for all.
- Legacy piston aircraft must be more environmentally friendly, and finally eliminate need for leaded fuel. However, any new fuel must be less expensive and widely available. I don’t see this happening with any new approved AVGAS substitutes. We chose a flex-fuel engine for our C172-V8 because it can burn different fuel types, including regular automotive gas with ethanol, which further reduces emissions and allows for modern emissions controls. STC’s for approving use of automotive non-ethanol gas should be expanded to more aircraft types and fuel be made available at more airports. Many airports have automotive gas on site for ground equipment and vehicles, but not always convenient for direct fueling of aircraft.
- The industry and FAA must focus on increasing number of student pilots starting flight training, and not just those training for airline careers. This starts with campaigns to attract new pilots, encourage and develop policies to start flying clubs and increasing rental fleet size, push for federal tax incentives which was a considerable factor in GA’s heydays, working with insurance carriers to find ways to lower cost, and exploring experimental aircraft flying club regulations that mostly restrict experimental aircraft from rental.
- The inability of even the greatest advocates we have, such as AOPA, to facilitate meaningful change in what’s needed for piston GA to begin a recovery suggests a change in tactics. Many suggested we, as well as AOPA and EAA, take a more aggressive approach on hot topics as certification restrictions, harmful emissions and insufficient number of pilot examiners by filing law suits to force change. Small entities simply don’t have the resources to do this. Much regulatory headway in other industries have come as a result of legal actions that forced change when government entities refused to act in the publics best interest on their own.
- Last, but most important, end FAA anti-GA piston culture evident by lack of evolution over the last four decades. This culture not only discourages innovation, but, as in our case, prevents it. And we are not alone. Appoint FAA leaders that want to find real solutions and strategies to work with all stake holders to develop meaningful and safe solutions that lower costs and increase the appeal to new comers. Including:
-
- Fast-track and encourage practical safety components and devices that are fail-passive (their failure would not leave the aircraft in less safe of a condition than if not installed) for the legacy piston fleet. Basic autopilots significantly increase safety, especially in small aircraft single pilot operations. Larger attitude indicators and better fuel level indications and warnings could have prevented many accidents. If the FAA encouraged such experimental or new technologies to migrate to older certified aircraft, with practical and affordable path ways to a STC or even field approval, small companies would follow the call with devices that make economic sense for the aging aircraft which will likely be in the GA fleet for decades to come considering the high cost and relatively low volume of newer aircraft deliveries. Even complex complete autopilot systems in the experimental/non-certified world cost about 1/3 of comparable certified units, a cost more feasible for the typical 40+ year old piston aircraft.
- FAA’s own studies long concluded such components make a significant increase in safety in small aircraft; FAA concluded, “ that inclusion of an integrated autopilot into small aircraft would provide and/or facilitate a significant increase in safety for this type of airplane. Autopilots can be found on some new small aircraft; however, due to current certification costs, the business case is not favorable for development of low cost autopilots for the small aircraft retrofit market and many new lower cost aircraft”. (FAA CASE NUMBER 88ABW-2015-4093 2). Essentially admitting certification cost being the primary factor why such safety enhancements are not produced, yet doing nothing to effect change.
- Fast-track and encourage practical safety components and devices that are fail-passive (their failure would not leave the aircraft in less safe of a condition than if not installed) for the legacy piston fleet. Basic autopilots significantly increase safety, especially in small aircraft single pilot operations. Larger attitude indicators and better fuel level indications and warnings could have prevented many accidents. If the FAA encouraged such experimental or new technologies to migrate to older certified aircraft, with practical and affordable path ways to a STC or even field approval, small companies would follow the call with devices that make economic sense for the aging aircraft which will likely be in the GA fleet for decades to come considering the high cost and relatively low volume of newer aircraft deliveries. Even complex complete autopilot systems in the experimental/non-certified world cost about 1/3 of comparable certified units, a cost more feasible for the typical 40+ year old piston aircraft.
-
- Encourage exploring methods to lower emissions and noise. It’s not that difficult or rocket science with decades of inexpensive, proven technologies from other engine segments readily and economically available.
- Develop broader policies that lower the cost of keeping vintage aircraft airworthy and expanding field approvals that is now only on individual aircraft basis (essentially, allow others to use prior identical field approvals without having to repeat the same bureaucratic process).
- Allow owners of older certified aircraft to convert to experimental which could significantly lower costs for private ownership or equity based flying clubs (there is current program for converting to primary category, but FAA policy requires formal certification process for any meaningful modifications which is the reason few have done it. In our case, FAA required us to perform the same DO-178 certification basis on our C172 as a new design of a passenger wide body passenger jet!). This would save many aircraft from being parted out or scrapped, and add to an affordable rental fleet or privately owned aircraft that are cleaner and quieter to operate than its original configuration.
- Appoint more pilot examiners (DPE’s). Another example of FAA’s war on piston GA, making training take even longer and costing even more. This has been a long focus for organizations as AOPA, but with little to no results. There are plenty of DPE applicant volunteers that directly cost the FAA nothing. The DPE’s I know are bombarded with requests for checkrides and getting burned out trying to help as many candidates possible while juggling their own airline job. Others are making a full-time job of it with checkrides costing well over $1,000, often cash, in some areas now. My last three students had to rent a plane and fly out of state to get a checkride in a reasonable time, further incurring rental and hotel costs adding to the final sum of the license.
- In 2011, there were 944 DPEs that conducted 60,621 check rides; compare that to 12 years later in 2023 with 969 DPE’s to conduct 140,954 check rides (adding 120,000 annual check rides but only 25 DPEs….. again, DPEs cost the FAA nothing other than staff for oversight. FAA needs to find leadership to either find the funding or find more efficient methods of oversight). Waiting even longer for FAA to solve proclaimed oversight as an excuse cannot continue to be FAA’s perpetual excuse at GA pilot’s expense. Well-funded airlines, or expensive jet and turboprop training facilities suffer no such shortage.
“The longer you are in a spin, the more difficult it is to recover’, said one of my CFIs long ago. As GA continues its downward trajectory, it becomes more difficult to recover. More small airports close for development into condos or commercial industrial centers; aviation fuel production curtails which further increases cost and shuts down refinery production; insurance carriers continue to leave the dwindling market; more older parts become harder to source and salvage yards dry up; repair/service shops close or now only work on turboprop or jets. All such pressures resulting in fewer new participants that can afford to fly even if they have local access to rental aircraft, and GA becomes even more of a rich man’s sport than it needs to be.
Some argue that GA is recovering based on increasing new piston aircraft deliveries over the last few years. But most new aircraft will be utilized for career flight training schools at considerable cost, and most pilots will never return to GA after starting their airline career. GA’s long-term success really depends on private aircraft ownership, rental aircraft fleet availability, having local airports and training facilities, and the staple recreational pilots seeking the now elusive $100 burger, renting a plane to visit family or friends, or just practicing touch & go’s on a sunny weekend. Essentially, it’s all about end user economics.
Thanks again for all that encouraged our experiment over the last four years and taking the time to reach out.
- The Corsair C172-V8 Experiment Update #3—Reader’s Suggestions - November 4, 2024
- The $20/hour Cessna 172 experiment—Update - October 31, 2022
- The $20 an hour Cessna 172 experiment - November 25, 2020
Did you ever consider to sidestep the FAA by certifying your engine in Europe first? Authorities here seem to be more open for new technologies in propulsion, as examples like Rotax and Austro Engine show. I’m not saying that we don’t have any burocracy here, but it can’t possibly be worse than what you experienced with the FAA.
What of a shame…..
Many legislation all over the world will love certify
your project if valuable like
in your description.
Certify your option will aloud small civil aviation authorities increase the chance of register much more aircraft into them registry.
For example
the Barbados civil aviation authority been very open mind in many circumstances in my experience with them. Like then I m shore there are many in the world.
Unfortunately answer to a friend was comment about FAA working for us?
No they don’t instead then work for huge companies make steady income and do no search for innovation like also make us save money.
Innovation come with a lot of work for bureaucrats
Then instead like to spend all them life doing the same daily and waiting patiently for pension day.
Good luck with your project and try do not give up.
Great idea!
Please get this engine STC‘d for all 1-series Cessnas!! We need your engine urgently!
I remember reading the earlier articles on this and watching the YouTube of this airplane flying around the pattern. I thought finally something new! But, FAA still protecting the big money companies and keeping GA shrinking so Faa doesn’t have to fund it. What other industry do you pay so much for such obsolete technology? FAA should be absolutely ashamed not just what they did to these guys, but the decades of others like them before.
It’s plain to see why general aviation still burns leaded gas, needs mixture and carb heat levers just as it did in 1940s ….I am am sure there were plenty of other small companies trying to make a difference like this company over the last decades and also shut down by FAA.. there is no other way to explain how only GA still uses the same engines as it did 60 years ago and exempt from progress while every other industry evolved, getting less expensive AND more efficient. FAA corruption continues and we will be stuck in same rut for another decade but with less airports and aircraft to fly, I will never own a certified aircraft again. I sold my Piper and bought an experimental and the cost is less than half and have far better , and safer, avionics than I could not have afforded otherwise on a certified plane. Best of all I can actually afford to fly it!!! I hate to see this company give up, but I understand. Thank you again FAA for being such stewards of aeronautics and committed public servants!
Here in Europe, we mostly get what you in the states develop. So this is disheartening to say the least, as our “FAA” wants to do even less to make any positive change. AVGAS here is more than double and cost to own a small plane like a CE172 is at least double when I sold ours 3 years ago because we couldn’t afford to fly it much yet had to pay thousands in yearly repairs and inspections. It doesn’t seem like anything is going change reading this. I hope your Faa doesn’t price everyone out of owning a plane as ours did, as it will have even a bigger effect in other parts of the world and even even less people will have the opportunity to enjoy it as we did. My gratitude to this author for really trying.
Doesn’t the FAA work for us? I can maybe understand them blowing these guys off if they only had a concept written on a cocktail napkin. But these guys actually had a real flying airplane that proved we could update old, dirty, loud, obsolete airplanes that most couldn’t even ford to fly!! My family included and never could finish my IFR rating because I could only afford to fly a couple of times a month. My son is in a career pilot training school and will have loans over $120K when done! He is paying way over $200 per hour for the same Cessna 172 model I flew 10 years ago, it just has screens instead of gauges and newer paint job….thats it! same controls and loud polluting engine!!! WTF? How is this progress?
Both of the places I used to rent from closed down years ago and the only rentals on the field only rent cirrus for way more than I can afford. I was driving an hour to a small airport that had old 2 Cherokees for $80/ hour I would rent, but the only repair shop on field closed so they did to.
I have the same engine they used in my Chevy suburban with over 200k miles on the odometer and never had a problem in over 12 years with little service other than oil changes. Why would it be less reliable in a plane?
I always dreamed of owning my own plane and even becoming an airline pilot, but the cost shut me down. F** K u FAA, instead of shutting these guys down you are paid by tax payers to find solutions, not be the problem. You’re a disgrace!!!
How is I never heard of this? Nothing happens in general aviation, ever. Just watched the YouTube’s and read the other article…. What am I missing here ? Why won’t Faa encourage stuff like this? Why did AOPA not do more to help? Again, what am I missing? Is this plane really flying with a car engine on car gas? I have been a pilot for over 3 years and working now on my commercial paying $175 each hour for a ancient 172 that is down half the time and looks and smells like it was in a war.
What is this newbie not understanding?
Innovation has always been America’s unmatched strength, especially in aviation. These guys are trying to do just that.
I have been a plane owner on and off for more than 40 years. GA died due to high cost and being frozen in time…. The old guys who afforded GA like me are almost gone with few behind them wanting to continue it. Companies like this should have been given the help needed to bring cheaper and better solutions decades ago by the FAA, not try to shut them down. This only deters others from trying, which seems to be the FAA objective. Keep GA alive.
GA died because people stopped pushing for innovation.
Here is a product that works and can be pushed towards calling the FAA’s bluff and you decided to spend your time commenting on a message board about how you’re to old.
You can write an article on this message board? Why can’t you call your state officials and make a bid for this. If you get traction GREAT! you found a purpose in life.
I’m in talks w/ the Hawaii office and am 78years old. Why don’t you pickup a phone and make some calls, add something to our lives, a purpose. Otherwise you offer no help to an effort to try and “Keep GA alive” as you said.
What a sad story. The FAA is behaving like a sullen child who doesn’t want to play or engage with well meaning adults. Never mind that they are the agency that says they are there to help! If I was a Senator or Representative, I’d sneak in a law to have this abuse of bureaucracy sidestepped by putting your plan into action by fiat with no recourse or interference by the FAA!
When having trouble navigating government bureaucracy, you need to enlist the help of your congressman or senators. If the FAA gets an inquiry from congressional staff (that have input on their budget), you bet they will take action.
I learned long ago the FAA is not our friend. No wonder why no one wants to bring change.
So a couple of guys can self fund and build a replacement engine that’s cheaper, cleaner and more efficient? In just a few years? And can bolt on to most aircraft? But Lycoming or continental hasn’t done anything but raise their prices for the same thing over the last 40 years? Sounds about right…. keep up the good work FAA!
I have been doing STCs for the last 25 years and have received over 40 STC’s worldwide for engine upgrades on turbine aircraft. I feel the frustration that the author has experienced but one thing I know is that the FAA has a typical government big ego mindset. Unless you have a relationship with some individuals within the FAA, it can be a challenge to get an STC. The authors biggest mistake in my opinion is telling the FAA they are corrupt. You can win no support from any government agency by using that language. To win FAA support, you have to work with the system which I know he tried but it’s a game of team building with the FAA. There are FSDOs and MIDOs that are worse than others and better than others. I would recommend the author reach out to different ACO’s/FSDO’s and set a meeting. My company uses the LA ACO in Calif which has been a great relationship. Other locations have so much work, they don’t have the capacity for a project of this scope.
That said, I don’t agree that getting an STC is a “good ole boy” process. It’s expensive for sure and built on building a relationship with the FAA. Their butts are on the line if they approve something that kills someone so they rightfully take their responsibility very seriously. I also disagree that the engine OEM’s have not progressed or innovated their engines. Both Lycoming and Continental have next gen diesel/jet A burning engines that use significantly less fuel than the Avgas burning counterparts. Many aircraft sport these engines such as Tecnam, Diamond and others. These engines have FADEC controls and electronic ignition systems.
Lastly, I would recommend that the author not give up on his engine upgrade. Take it to Europe and get an STC with EASA. They are very open to new ideas like this. Once it’s EASA approved, it’s fairly straightforward to gain FAA/DGAC/ANAC/CAA approval.
Good luck!
“The authors biggest mistake in my opinion is telling the FAA they are corrupt. You can win no support from any government agency by using that language.”
I had the same thought. I’d guess that pretty much guarantees your email ending up in the bin.
Interesting thought here… perhaps those legacy companies would be interested in buying this engine as a quick way to modernize their products?
Seems to me the VERY sort of solution/improvement that Elon Musk would consider for one of his engineering projects.
No way, he’d go electric. Technology is almost there for this to become a reality – the infrastructure though will take awhile.
This sounds like a situation where your Congressman might be able to “encourage” the FAA to set up a meeting with you. There are some strong supporters in Congress for General Aviation. I can see them wanting to help you; perhaps even attend the meeting with you.
This is 100% a situation where I would get politicians involved. Congress has oversight of the FAA. I see a comment directly above me saying the same thing, but I guarantee you that federal agencies jump when the people funding their program get involved.
Especially now with the planned reductions and streamlining of the federal government. This is the result of precisely the type of bureaucratic bloat that the new administration is keen on changing. Innovative ideas that work should be at the forefront of aviation advancement – not marginalized and red-taped into oblivion by busybody Feds.
Agree. Pick any government department. They are bureaucracies designed to block the little guy. They claim to serve the people but only in the abstract. When you try to contact them, it is like dealing with a black hole – information in, but no information out. I would suggest getting your congressional representative(s) involved. They have staff that may be able to get you in the door with the FAA, rather than have it slammed in your face.
I would ask you and your worthy project crew to please reach out and share this article (with a brief cover letter) with every Congressman and Senator. They, after all, are responsible for overseeing the giant bureaucracy(s). Even if it doesn’t revive your project (but hoping it will), it might remove some roadblocks for others currently attempting other worthy advancements.
I would suggest with the change in administration AND Elon Musk as some part of that, you send a condensed version of this to Elon. Innovation is his middle name!
A few glib statements detract from credibility. Avgas, for example, is stable over time. Mogas is not. Mogas has different formulations for winter and summer. Vapor pressure is an issue. Then there’s the issue of implementing an additional distribution system. And the trite comments about 60 year old engines show a similar lack of understanding of certification costs and requirements. This whole issue is really a systems engineering problem — touting the benefits and ignoring the difficult parts reduces the argument to hype. And when hype is rightfully ignored, benefits are lost.
Not sure you understand of which you speak….
1. Most aircraft don’t hold gas in their tanks for long periods and well within safe timeframes. Moreover, flex fuel engines as this can consume non ethanol gas -if what you are concerned with is ethanol evaporation loss of octane- including non ethanol and even AVGAS.
2. Winter blends still have minimum octane ratings posted at pump, typically 85, and modern engines compensate with knock sensor inputs to ignition timing well before it’s an issue. So if you maintain the minimum octane regardless of season, you are good to fill up in a winter location and fly to a much warmer environment . The Corsair v8 is good to, and tested to, 85 octane in OAT exceeding 95F. The test fuel was stored in unsealed container for 5 months to account for lower octane raw a result of evap.
3. Vapor pressure is always an issue with any modern engine, especially with ethanol gas vapor points. That issue is typically considered in the fuel delivery system pressure and design. Outside ambient air pressure at altitude has insignificant effect on EFI systems.
4. RE additional distribution system concern… we mention easy sources of finding car gas on airports in our website. We recently flew across the country and had to use AVGAS when only available, no problem other than performing an engine runup before take off to be sure spark plugs were clean.
5. RE lack of understanding of cert cost…. Our team is very experienced with the process, but such experiences was working on large jet projects that were well funded and had FAAs attention. We realized GA is far less receptive to ga piston than expected, and don’t have the funding to pay for such influence and build a plane.
6. Re trite comments I made…. 50 years after the wright brother first flew, we were flying in comfort aboard jetliners across oceans: what significant innovation has piston GA experienced in just the last 50 years?
7. There is no engineering issue that you allude to. The engine and most components we use are well proven and with millions in service for well over a decade in everything from automobiles to boats and military applications. It’s not rocket science. I do not know your engineering or power plant practical experience, but If you have helpful suggestions we are always open and have received many solutions from followers of the project that were incorporated.
Like any such complex solution, it’s not perfect, but it’s practical considering its mission. Any other new from scratch design of a piston aircraft engine to meet economic requirements would be infeasible in both short and long term. We certainly have more testing to be completed if the project moved forward, but most critical issues were well resolved.
First, thank you for your continued advocacy and determination!
For my two cents, if the agency has failed to uphold, much less pursue, its own mission, reach out to those who have authority over the agency. Ask AOPA and EAA to co-author some communication with the Secretary of Transportation. You could also try to get a meeting with your state congressional members and/or search for other congressional members who are known to fight for any causes that overlap with the benefits your research has shown to have for the environment or the industry.
Perhaps the new administration in Washington can revamp the FAA along with other departments. The USA has long been the bastion of innovation and free enterprise and using “safety concerns” as a weapon to prevent innovation is a huge mistake. The certified aircraft have fallen well behind the experimental and homebuilt models due to the difficulty and liability inherent in change – this in itself should be regarded as a “safety concern” and is not in the interests of the public.
I can’t believe I never heard of this. I had to read the article twice to try to understand if I was missing something. I even read the last articles in disbelief.
We recently sold our well enjoyed c172 because it was costing us almost $70 per hour to fly (well over $100 when considering other expenses) , if nothing broke. Further complicating matters, the last mechanic on field closed up so now have to fly an hour for any maintenance and inspections. Our insurance has gone up over 50% in last 3 years even though we fly less and less due to cost. Approaching TBO and having increasing oil consumption issues, we realized even a simple overhaul was going to cost more than $25k which sealed the deal. Plus needed to replace a radio and other items that we were sourcing from salvage yards and eBay.
This guy is right, flying small aircraft is a rich man’s sport even more than it used to be, or should. My car has over 150k trouble free miles on it and all I do is oil changes- no annual inspections or approved parts, ECT . In fact, I don’t know of anyone that has trouble with their car breaking down, and I don’t think anyone actually gets it serviced on a regular basis. If this engine was an option for us, we would have installed it rather than rebuild original Cessna engine. At $25 hour to fly, we would certainly flew more for sure.
Sorry guys like this are getting treated like this by the same people we pay to help them bring change and modernization to a dying industry. Thanks for trying.
I completely agree with this article. The advancement in automotive engine technology over the last 50 years is stunning. Much of the advancement could easily be transferred to aviation power plant use. Just as advancements in avionics has benefited GA. using modern engine technology would greatly improve the GA. fleet.
WTF! The very people we entrust to bring positive change that is long overdue and needed simply feel they can blow off small businesses regardless of what they have proved can work!!??
No wonder GA is prehistoric and no one can afford it! I get the safety concern, but they never even gave this a chance. How can a government agency, let alone a division specifically charged for doing exactly what this company did, simply feel so arrogant that they can simply ignore them so they don’t have to do any work?
AOPA has merely slowed GAs death but little otherwise. I keep reading about how they are fighting for FBO pricing awareness and fighting to keep small airports open……if they would start suing the FAA to make GA affordable and open to more people, they wouldn’t have to fight these small battles! It won’t matter much if FBOs require price signs like gas stations if there are no airplanes to fuel. After decades of being a member, Im cancelling my membership. I no longer have a plane because I could not afford to enjoy it anymore and it became more and more of a hassle, and they are ineffective.
Being a tax payer too, I’m outraged. What other innovations that could have made ga safer and more affordable have they quashed simply because they did not have the money to bribe their influence. And to know that the administrator knows this goes on under him without doing anything about it proves the FAA wants GA to die.
Hats off to these guys for trying and what seems to be a great start to a solution to bring GA back to life. Goes to prove that the FAA is still not your friend.
Me and 2 friends decided to buy a 1970s Piper Cherokee few years back. It was mostly original but had only 1200 hours on engine. Was a huge mistake. Every time something broke we scrambled to find a replacements…..the radios were so old no one fixed them so we looked into a new radio stack which would have cost about half of the planes value, so we found replacements on eBay with less than great results. The insurance went up each year, and hanger rent almost doubled, so we tied down outside. Fuel reached almost $7 a gallon and the local shop that did our repairs and inspections didn’t want to work on small airplanes much and were backlogged by months. We couldn’t get the annual done before it expired because the mobile mechanic said he fell behind, so had to get a permit to fly it to another airport for the inspection, which cost us a small fortune for insignificant stuff and turned out our insurance was not likely covering us for the flight.
At end of 3rd year we looked at the expense and how little we were flying it, mostly because it was costing about $75/hour with just fuel and reserves, about $110 figuring other expenses. We all make a good living but it was way cheaper to drive and not that much longer time wise. We sold it 2 months later. It seemed worth more in parts than whole and learned it was parted out.
There is no reason a 40 year old piston plane should cost so much. Would you pay anything close for a 40 year old car? Our experience was ga is now too small and insignificant in size to Force any change. After reading this, I’m saddened and upset that our own government played such a part by protecting big companies monopolies from being disrupted by small companies trying to make positive change.
After watching the YouTube, I imagined if our plane had this engine. Thank you Jay and team for trying, and proving there are realistic solutions to reversing GA’s decline.
TRUMP & VANCE & MUSK may be your answer to the Bureaucrats’ power-plays against Businesses. Please be encouraged & please don’t give up!
Amen & amen!
I will note that car engines live a far more leisurely life than do aircraft engines. The V6 in my 2006 Grand Caravan @ 265k miles has spent very little time at the % power at which aircraft engines routinely operate.
I remember this plane from an air show years ago. I was just getting my private lic and asked where the mixture control was…. I felt like an idiot as I thought all planes like the c152 I was learning in required mixture control. It didn’t even have a carb heat which prompted me to further sound like an idiot when asking how it doesn’t get icing. The girl there explained why, and I suddenly realized just how old aircraft engine technologies are compared to even an older car. I flew a brand new c172 last year and other than the EFIS screens, it still had a mixture and performed the exact same as the 1970s c172 my school has.
I can’t believe they never got anywhere with this. The owner of my flight school said he would replace his fleet with it, but told me the FAA would never allow it to be certified because it would hurt Lycoming and continental and help GA survive. It seems he was right.
Yes. I think that the truth about it is that the FAA has actively decided GA is a problem. It represents more work for them and they do not perceive any benefit. It is a question of leadership. My guess is that they are not graded on GA success. It seems no one believes GA is necessary or has merit. People do what they are graded on.
Now many accidents and lives lost due to multiple FAA administrations keeping GA 50 years behind all other industries in all categories, including safety. How many lives affected by keeping AVGAS leaded emissions in the air?
If anyone still believes that the FAA doesn’t want GA to survive beyond a small wealthy elite considering the lack of progress GA piston powered has made over the last half century, regardless of the lives it has cost, read this again. I’m cancelling both my AOPA and EAA membership considering how little they have done that is meaningful. I only rent now and will never own an airplane again. I hated selling my Mooney but I just couldn’t justify the ever increasing cost of everything related. The FAA wants to kill GA and doesn’t care how many pilots and passengers it takes.
Kudos to this effort and sorry our own DO-nothing FAA continues its crusade.
Sounds like an interesting option.
As other suggest, engaging Congressional GA caucus may help.
As someone who has worked in/around US govt for years, the bad news…as justifiably frustrated as you may be by lack of follow up, what your mother probably told you about honey vs vinegar holds true. Casting doubt on someone’s ethics or conspiracies immediately gets you dumped in the “crank” category to be ignored. Those you’ve reached out to may not have treated you fairly, but a “just the facts” follow up devoid of emotion or righteous indignation is much more effective for generating replies than even hinting at annoyance. Adding seniors not originally cc’d is also counterproductive as the original addees will just ignore as someone trying to make trouble. Not saying FAA response was what it could or should have been, but the FAA is made up of people, and throwing mud (however justified) is not conducive to getting people to go out of their way for you or anyone else trying to work a “process”.
Did you contact the GA supportive CONGRESSIONAL legislators who recently and successfully pushed for GA advancement in the recent FAA AUTHORIZATION? I’m a former Flt Standards Fed who is familiar with the hard headedness of that beuracracy. I’m surprised that AOPA and EAA have been so patient with a wait and see do the rock the boat philosophy. Go to CONGRESS to the heads of the AVIATION SUBCOMMITTEES! They have been quite effective with som recent GA improvements such as BASIC MED and CFI expiration! I think Graves is the name of one of the congressman who supports GA! Call him! Rock the boat! FAA is dragging its feet on MOSAIC, too! This unacceptable! They have forgotten who they work for! IM me if I can help!
In the Federal government, an action delayed/deferred is an ACTION COMPLETE! I’ve seen it in action! 8-5 mentality; holidays off; unbelievable leave time off benefits! No wonder the FAA and other agencies can’t get things done in a timely manner! Time to contact the new President and Elon Musk! Time to shake up the unaccountable, entitled bureaucrats! I had to call the VA REP in the Trump White House during his presidency to get the attention of the VA! In short order, my phone was ringing off the hook. ROCK THE BOAT!
Time to contact the new president? If you’re not disable, why don’t you do what you say? Are you just talking sh(t w/ no energy to do anything? Are you a typical lazy American just want it to drop in your lap?
America used to be king of innovation, drive and spirit and all i see here are a bunch of people crying and making suggestions. While not doing anything. Your actions matter not your keystrokes.
Get up put on your big boy pants larry and email your state rep. Otherwise keep your useless comments to yourself.
I have 1.5 hrs into this w/ my hawaii office. What do you have?
Who’s the LEAD on MOSAIC? Time to shake HIS/HER ass up! Get off your butt and GITERDUN! It’s been over a year since it was introduced at EAA 2023! If you can’t get it done, you need to find another job! Enough is enough!
Follow the money. My suggestion is to contact the aviation sub committee in congress and find a general aviation supporter like was done with basic med. Also, increase AOPA’s PAC resources to persuade (bribe) congress into acting on this. The FAA is very respectful to concerns when t congress gets involved.
I get their frustration. They have been trying to just get a meeting with FAA for over 4 years and likely spent a lot of their own money developing the plane. After reading the earlier article, I’m even mad. I think they have earned the right to call it as they see it, corrupt or worst.
Considering the high cost of GA for old tech and lack of anyone wanting to even try to make it cheaper and better for environment, Not sure what more it takes to realize the FAA plays favorites and protects big business with monopolies.
I realize this corruption every time I have to buy a stupid expensive common part or upgrade my simple c172….. every time I buy gas that pollutes the earth and cost twice as much as my car’s gas.
These guys were shut down by the very government servants responsible and paid for helping them. If they only had a design on a cocktail napkin, that’s one thing. But they had an actual flying plane that the FAA themselves gave check rides in! They knew it worked and seemingly did everything possible to shut them down….. while the engine companies they have allowed to monopolize us for decades offer no such affordable or environmentally better solution. If that’s not corruption, I’m not sure what is.
I wish you would have succeeded, I would be a customer.
Wow, what dedication for GA. What an article! You must be worn out.
I’m a huge fan of your efforts and it is very frustrating to see the struggles on this front.
Sad state of affairs at the FAA and your experiences. It occurs to me that you are going about this the wrong way. You have no leverage with the agency going through the front door. The arguments you present about cost and reviving GA are falling on deaf ears – they simply don’t care. The one argument you do have is the environmental angle. By enlisting the resources environmental groups you will enlist a new set of resources and be able to pressure the FAA in ways that resonate. Just look at all the press around SAFE fuel. The next observation I have is that your reach is limited to the GA community – you’re mostly preaching to the choir. There is a lot of movement in California to limit the sale of leaded fuel. This is a real solution that local communities could get behind.
In summary if you can’t win by going through traditional channels (front door) then you’ve got to flank the resistance by using alternate routs to shine light on the agency.
Another wonderful useless response. Why can’t you reach out and do something with your state officials? Are you too disable?
I’m working hard in Hawaii to get something going while you sit there making suggestions. Action speaks louder than words.
I suggest contacting your congressman and senators. Also reach out to the Congressional Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. https://transportation.house.gov/
Approach your Federal representatives from the angle that the FAA is inhibiting small businesses and impeding development that will produce more jobs.
Maybe Trump might be a help he seems more interested in US based organisations succeeding than past administrations. The Australian CASA under the current leadership seems to be more likely to be interested and it is a much smaller bureaucracy than your hidebound mob who seem much more self interested than their job description requires.
Maybe I’m old school but expecting quick or any action from an email seems a bit optimistic. I’d suggest having some key elected officials on speed dial! The cost claims of this path seem a bit optimistic but regardless, kudos for pursuing the much needed innovation and I hope you find a successful way forward. My 65 year old aircraft was just re-engined at shocking expense and as far as I can tell nothing technological meaningfully different/enhanced from the original engine. Why does FAA seemingly encourage innovation in aircraft panels but not forward of the firewall?!
I would suggest waiting until the Trump administration is rolling and let them hear this story. He seems big on cutting regulations and red tape. It sounds like some heads need to roll in the upper tier of the FAA!
Great suggestion. How does that help anyone? Is that your contribution to this whole situation? Why can’t you pickup the phone and make a call or email? You wasted your life posting on this forum with a useless response. Action over words.
The new administration has said they will be looking to streamline and eliminate obstructive bureaucrats and regulations. I would suggest sending this to the new Trump Administration (Elon Musk) when that gets established, laying out the entire scope of impact your experience has had. Do not forget your state senators and congressman and copy the congressional oversight of the Department of Transportation (Cruz, Ted (TX)). All of these oversight people know about the “problems” within the FAA and Elon is chief among those with his battle over spacecraft launches.
Please don’t give up yet. You have come so far! You could go much further!!
I would recommend contacting US Rep Graves (MO). He is a pilot and is the sponsor of the bill that just passed expanding privileges for those flying under Basic Med. As a MO resident I plan to share this article with him as well.
Thank you for sharing the article with your state rep in MO. I’ve done the same with my Hawaii office. If we all work on this, we can get some traction.
I need this product in Hawaii. It seems all these fools on here have the answer to contact state reps but none of them do anything except comment about it. I think they’re all disable and can’t do anything on their own.
This may sound foolish to some, but at this point what have you got to lose? Reach out to the New President Elect. He seems to have a disdain for inept government agencies & policies, that inhibit progress and prevent things form being done, especially things with great potential. He doesn’t tolerate incompetence either. How could reaching out to him directly hurt? He even has his own plane…lol
Agree with AJ 100%. Perhaps share with Elon Musk as well given his interest in government efficiency and experience with the bureaucracy. FAA is clearly unresponsive and deserves to be shook up.
I forwarded this article and comments to Vivek Ramaswamy though I’m not from his home state. Hoping other will do the same.
He should not have to reach out to the president, congress or even administrator if our FAA simply did their job. Here’s a guy that actually built a possible solution for why GA has been dying for decades, with the biggest obstacle being our own government agency responsible for doing just that. Hard to imagine someone is being enticed to keep the stats quo for the benefit of a few.
Seems FAA always been hell bent on killing GA at the expense of others. How many others who’ve they shut down? I won’t be renewing my AOPA membership. I wont pay for advocacy that will mean nothing when there’s no GA other than for a few wealthy.
My dad was frustrated with the FAA’s lack of progress allowing him to comply with an AD on his Taylorcraft lift struts. I am a non-pilot, so I started ringing phones at the FAA. I got a call out of the blue. The guy said that my name came up in a meeting. “Awesome!” He said that he understood that I had disparaging things to say about the FAA. “On the contrary! On be behalf of grounded Taylorcraft owners across the United States, I offer to you: what can we do to help?” Manufacturer approval occurred within 3 months. The lesson is: ring phones. Many, many phones. The FAA is a bureaucracy, use the the rest of the machine against them. Contact every lawmaker and put pressure on them from above.
Move your company to Florida (or Texas) and Rep. Matt Gaetz will light a fire under the FAA.
Really that easy? Your comments have accomplished nothing. What prevents you from reaching out to some Congressmen about the FAA to help bring costs down for you? Great you commented on a board with a bunch of people who do nothing
I spoke to my Hawaii officials have you? Just a random quote. You want something you need to act for it.
The action item here is for all of us. Every one of us has a state representative in DC. Therefore every one of us (not just the author) has the responsibility to contact our representatives. Flood DC with this call for change. Emails are largely ignored. Right now this very minute look up the number for your representative and call them. Don’t wait for someone else. Don’t wait for tomorrow.
Done! It’s the weekend so I left a message requesting a call back from my congressional representative’s office. And I’ve already placed a reminder in my phone to call them Monday morning.
Create a web page interface for people to send a form letter regarding this to their member in the United States House of Representatives. If enough of us ask our Congress (holders of the purse strings) to intervene on our behalf with the FAA…
Amazing…. I have been following this project since 2020 and thought it was a no-brainer to get it developed for owners wanting to convert to experimental.
I have doubts that with even political pull the FAA will do much, and same Faa will likely just bury him in more bureaucracy. It’s hard to think that the FAA at this level isn’t currupt. Surely, this is not the first small business attempting to bring real needed change to GA. The pathetic non modernization of GA demonstrates some real level of corruption protecting a few legacy manufacturers that have no reason to do better.
As an earlier comment stated, I too see this corruption every time I have to buy a part for my little plane that cost 3-4x of a comparable car part from a company that has been selling the same item for decades without competition.
Every time I have to find a A&P or shop for inspection or simply to perform work I am fully capable of as FAA has done nothing to help increase numbers of dwindling A&Ps. It’s hard to believe this is not a part of a bigger strategy. Make it so expensive and difficult to comply with regulations that most will give up or go broke and hopefully part their plane out.
We need new stuff from guys like these. The FAA and industry has proven they have little if any interest in making our aircraft safer, environmentally friendly, or less expensive. such a strategy protects the legacy companies and reduces workload on FAA, so it seems it’s working for all but the public and planet.
As others before wrote here, it’s no wonder why no one wants to better GA. I appreciate these guys going above and beyond, and feel there will be fewer and fewer willing to try going forward.
We re in Europe and owning a plane is more difficult and cost much more. We count on Faa to bring new things to market because so difficult and expensive here to develop. I am sad to read this as less will change hear. My club has c172 that cost about double to own here and parts always not easy to get because few used part source. New parts have extra taxes and shipping fees so much more cost than in USA.
I hope Faa understands they also hurt other countries when preventing new developments in small airplanes. To have an engine as this we can get parts much easier and cheaper from car dealer. Also AVGAS is 2 to 3 times cost as USA and using car gas would make big difference.
Good luck to these company for trying to make a big difference.
These guys have been trying to just get a meeting with the Faa, not demanding anything else. Reading prior articles it seems they were shut down developing the project for ridiculous stated reasons and had no course of refuting or even have anyone listen to them. They put a lot of time and effort into trying to make a difference and proved that it flys and works as they say it does.
After 4 years of trying to just get a meeting, even with the help of AOPA, and nothing…… if he wants to call the FAA currupt, he has every right to! As a tax payer, I ‘m calling it the same. I’m spent over $13K for my private license in beat up,, smelly, relics of a Cessna 172 that was down half the time awaiting parts and half the equipment actually worked, and their c172 plane would of cost me only $4k if I had it????!!! Fu#k you FAA! They are a disgrace for letting this happen.
I thought aviation would be an exciting technological new experience, but it’s anything but. Everything is old, beat up and the same it was half a century ago. It still uses leaded gas!!! Am I the only one seeing the disconnect with everything thing else in the world?
I never understood it until now. My CFIs always told me it was because of Faa certification cost and civil liabilities that keep cost high and prevented new technologies. But it is the FAA allowing monopolies….there is no way these guys are the first to be shut down, and Faa so arrogant in this protection racquet they have gotten away with it for 50 fu@king years!!!
I will be in debt more than $100k just for my flight training and who knows how many gallons of leaded gas out the exhaust pipe I put in the air we breath. I may be new at this aviation career but cannot believe anyone familiar with the frozen state of small aircraft doesn’t think that the industry and FAA is currupt. .what more proof do you need?
This plane was displayed at a the Thunder Kanas air show couple of years back and got a tour of it. Being an aero engineer and kit plane fanatic, I asked way too many questions but the guy there answered all in detail and the entire conversion kit seemed like it came from GM or other production line. My EXP was too small for that size engine, but my brother and I thought about buying a salvaged c172 and putting their kit on when it became available and operating as experimental. I’m sorry to hear they shut down simply because FAA leadership policies. It could have been a catalyst for other startups to bring much needed change.
Seems Lycoming (owned by giant government contractor Textron that also owns Cessna) relationship with FAA leaders continues to pay off for them at our expense.
Where is AOPA? For the amount of personnel and money they spend on lobbying, the head of the FAA should be on Mark Baker’s speed dial. You want to bring GA back? The cost of being in GA needs to go down. A conversion like this would make a huge difference.
Your comments have accomplished nothing. What prevents you from reaching out to some Congressmen about the FAA to help bring costs down for you? Great you commented on a board with a bunch of people who do nothing
I spoke to my Hawaii officials have you?
Your comments have accomplished nothing. What prevents you from reaching out to some Congressmen about the FAA to help bring costs down for you?
I spoke to my Hawaii officials have you?
As others posted above….anyone involved with GA for any period of time see the FAA corruption in everything from lack of progress, lack of competition, absolutely insane cost of parts and components that have remained unchanged for half a century, and even waiting months for a check ride requiring you pay another FAA protected monopoly cash for the privilege of complying with FAA regulations. What other industry does this happen?
Anyone I know in GA has bitched bout how the FAA protects established companies for decades, but FAA has always been a faceless bureaucratic government entity which is difficult to imagine individuals responsible for the corruption is a bit surreal but encouraging in a way knowing that it may be possible to turn GA around if we can get rid of arguably corrupt leaders like these “civil servants” for others that want to do the job they are appointed to. Disgraceful and unacceptable and something one would expect to hear happening in Russia.
AOPA continues to disappoint and a joke if they cannot even get this guy a meeting. I will not be renewing my membership, as well, and no wonder why so little advocacy, like the DPE issues, has been fixed.
Jay… thank you for trying to find a simple solution to a simple problem that our government has been asking for for decades.
I don’t see the problem here…..even though you cannot walk into a FAA office anymore without an appointment, or even call and talk to someone right away because thy are all “working” from home….. the official process to get their prompt attention now requires you first seemingly violate a regulation. I expect they will issue new AC explaining the process, but it’s something like this
screw up answering something on your medical, not having your transponder or ADSB working properly, having some land lubber claim you flew too low over their neighborhood, your ELT batteries were not actually changed last annual, ECT… ECT…
You need only to do something that they can violate and perhaps prosecute you for, and they actually come to you….. much like room service……like the STOL guy that got violated for a go-around when realizing it wouldn’t be safe to land in a field and neighbors reported him for low flight even though FAA advises not to land anytime it would be unsafe. FAA contacted him promptly and gave him concierge attention. In fact, they wouldn’t even leave home alone for some months and brought in lawyers to help facilitate his concerns.
Trick is not to let them know you want to help promote GA, someone could lose their job if they actually contact you to help with said process. Simply report yourself for some form of violation, any thing really, and relax in comfort knowing you will be given the attention a tax payer deserves and dares to expect. And when contacted, address your real concerns with them at that time, but realize you will likely still be violated and have to fight the charges as a cost for the personalized service.
New innovation has been deeply needed in ga for a long time, for a number of important reasons such as safety and environmental, and I, and most here, appreciate passionate efforts as yours trying to make a difference.
it is interesting to see names of actual directors at FAA responsible for actually bringing INNOVATION to GA and operating as a system to make small companies like this give up. what a great job they are doing! Are they still working at FAA or are they now managers at Lycoming? we expect this runaround from FAA but very disappointed in AOPA in their efforts and overall performance the last 10 years. they lost focus and im sick of reading about million dollar airplanes and new technologies too expensive for most pilots to contemplate buying. if they can’t do anything to get just a meeting for these gentlemen what advocacy can they do for the rest of us?
I’m done as a member too.
This is sad. We need anything that can bring new pilots to GA and keep planes available at cost most can afford.
I hope someone at FAA can do something about this.
I see a lot of comments about emailing senators and state officials. Why don’t “We all “HELP!!” and email our senators too. There is strength in numbers!!! Do you want this product? I sure as heck do….. It looks like this team poured their life into this project and have proven it. Can’t we all as proponents and wanting this evolution make a call or email to our legislatures?
To sit here and now tell this author to go the political route to appease us all. I for example, am calling my legislation in Hawaii here today. I’m sick of their corruption and this is my way to shove it down their throats paying $8 for fuel and then pushing some magic fuel onto me. “Big Middle Finger to the FAA (F**kn An*l As*holes)” Lets all do something rather than commenting to tell Elon Musk and telling this innovator what to do. Make a difference. If you were clever enough to comment you can do something that matters with your lives and make this product available by pushing it towards your legislations..
You’ve all got answers but no action. Lets make a difference. I WANT THIS PRODUCT.
We need this in Hawaii or our GA is gone, that is why I look at this is our last chance, this is it! Otherwise we can all choke on 10gallon fuel and continue to not be able to sit down due to the OEM’s. I hate being under someones thumb.
Excellent article Author, exposing the whole thing. I am making a push for you in Hawaii.
Trump likes a good fight, particularly with bureaucrats. Send a letter to him and copy your senator, representative, EPA and Secretary of Transportation. Canada may be interested and they also have the Rockies.
Are you disable Wayne? What prevents you from reaching out to some Congressmen about the FAA?
Are you lazy? Not interested? Not aware of what you’re saying? My guess is disable. You took the time to comment why not do something productive with your life and email your officials.
People like you deserve 10gallon fuel.
Rich, A lot of us are contacting our Reps and others who might help. You’re torching (repeatedly) folks who are on our side and can already read your previous ‘suggestions.’ I think that tactic will backfire more than help.
I am not sure much can be done anymore. The size of GA is so small now and it more than seems even AOPA or EAA gets blown off. These FAA individuals named in article seem not concerned to be bothered with blatantly doing the opposite of their job and even the administrator himself takes no issue with it. Fact is, our segment of aviation is now just too small for any clout to even have our own government agency personnel feel the need to even respond to us. I think this by design, how can you explain it any other way?
I think the writer my be right in having AOPA start suing FAA for not fulfilling their mission of promoting aviation and allowing the only engine segment in their influence to use leaded gas a quarter of a century after it was outlawed for everyone else while shutting down innovators that have solutions just to protect the big manufacturers from my competition REGARDLESS IT PUTS PUBLIC HEALTH AT RISK.
Big legacy manufacturers never even tried to make a difference in 50 years because their relationship with policy mangers and directors at FAA like these stuffed shirts obviously protected them from upstarts like this V8 solution. How else can you explain it? Way I see it from 30 years owning and renting aircraft, paying small fortunes for old everything because the Faa made me because they stifled any competition that may have brought competition and innovation. I think he calls it as he sees it after years of getting railroaded by his own government civil servants, a corrupt process, and I agree. What a disgrace for an agency once celebrated for bringing such innovation.
I too, see why so few small companies want to take on the FAA or give up. I cannot believe AOPA would not want to publish this story as it gives such insight to why we haven’t kept up with other modes of transportation and half a century behind. It would be more interesting read than another story of a millionaire flying his private new jet or turboprop…or how fast the new Citation jet goes .those guys don’t need the advocacy, the rest of us do. For that, I will not be renewing my AOPA membership next year as well, and hope to find better ways to support my passion and keep GA alive.
These guys seem to have made great strides, I would encourage them to continue the fight, but I understand their frustration.
I very sad to hear this outcome. I have been following this project and am very excited about its possibilities. I am sure it has been suggested, but what about reaching out to some Congressmen about the FAA. If the FAA was a business, it would fail. Their organization is set up and paid to allow growth in the industry. If they are not doing their job, then they should be removed. I am not saying this if every FAA personnel, but those who are not doing their job.
Are you disable Jeffery? What prevents you from reaching out to some Congressmen about the FAA?
Are you lazy? Not interested? Not aware of what you’re saying? You took the time to comment why not do something productive with your life and email your officials rather than making stupid suggestions that were mentioned in the 100 comments above.
I don’t know what to think about this as it really does seem like a win win for all, even FAA as they have been wanting change from lead had since I have been flying close to 30 years. We waited almost 6 months for parts for our O-360 engine and being able to use mass produced car parts availability and lower cost seems right direction. Why would FAA not give this a chance?
I think from Faa view point it’s easier not to risk approving something that later causes accident. But not taking calculated risks we would still be living caves. But these Faa leaders are supposed to lead and at least explore opportunities to make things better, not use their huge buracrcy against innovations.
Our shop suggested time to replace seat belts in our c150some years back as they were probably very weak compared to when new. They are simple, 1972 era seat belts I had in my old VW and figured cost to be about $150 per seat…. But quote was over $1200 for both seats. We only replaced the pilot seat belt as it was more worn out looking due to cost. Next annual was told should replace the other belt but I could not afford the costs.
I asked why so expensive, and simply told they was no difference in car belt but plane belt had to be Faa approved. He mentioned some people just buy car belts with same measurements and install themselves….which we did, for total cost less than $100 and took me less than 30 min to install myself (found recommendation for exact c152 belts online in pilot forums recommending a classic car supply shop online store and instructions how to do it because it was exact same as a 1950 car). The belts were identical to the original FAA approved Cessna belts but tag said were DOT approved rather than Cessna saying FAA approved.
Faa needs to make this type of safety stuff cheaper and more widely available for older planes. You can’t mandate something but keep it so expensive that most can’t buy it, especially safety related equipment.
Faa needs to do more with helping others bring modern upgrades like in this article too….. why is it so difficult?
I second the suggestion that congress-critters should be contacted and involved in the non-responsiveness issues. I’ll be contacting mine.
I have also submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for all e-mail and other releasable internal and external communications, documents, or memos regarding this project, and will report back once I know the scope of the expected release or once I receive the documents.
The FAA has completely left their mission of supporting aviation and has become an obstacle to any innovation. In recent times they have been forced to allow innovation through congressional action. I would recommend that you being contacting congressional representatives both in the house and senate who are aviation supporters and possibly on the aviation interested committees for help. Either we get these overbearing obstacles changed or aviation will die in th I s country.
As other said above . I am not sure these FAA leaders (leaders being a strong word here) will do much even with political pressure. Small companies like this can not bring the same power as billion dollar entrenched companies as Textron (owns Cessna and lycomming) and Faa will simply wear them down again as they have done for last 40 years. These FAA leaders need to understand they re here for us and FAA mission to promote aviation, not protect a miserable status quo.
This is the experience I have had with the FAA medical back in March 2024my flight doctor sent all my records that were requested by the FAA I have called every month the same responce It is in for review it is now the end of November 2024 and still no response. The system is beyond BROKEN My only hope is that ELON MUST will go in and clean house and rebuild the FAA because anything is better than what we have now.
Wes Norton
I can see how such a shut down can happen at the FSDO level as no one is even there anymore, but these FAA people are high up policy makers and even the administrator himself! This guy is right, it’s a well rehearsed strategy to protect Lycoming and old business that couldn’t care less about making GA affordable and losing their monopoly. This is why GA is an antique…. YOU THINK THIS CORRUPTION ONLY HAPPENS IN RUSSIA.
Now I understand what happened to all the new technologies I’ve read about in aviation magazines the last 20 odd years why they never came out and simply disappeared. I’ll sign a petition! And as far as AOPA, this is the best they can do for this guy? what a joke. What’s the point? I’m done with them as well. They should demand a meeting with Faa administrator and demand he appoint new policy makers that understands who they work for and why they are there. Pilots or not, tax payers should be outraged at such government performance.
After reading this and other mentioned articles, I thought There must be something we don’t know about this as there is no way FAA could simply shut down something like this. But earlier comment I think proves the point,,, then why are our planes still burning lead gas and powered by same engines from the 1950’s. What other new technologies, now old technologies in other markets, has GA been denied? I know first hand how expensive owning just a c150 can be and how cost prohibitive it is just for simple upgrades or parts or even fuel but never really knew why there was no after market parts for most things like my car has.
EAA and AOPA really let all of us down on this. Discouraging to see how little influence they and we really have with FAA.
I agree! I thought the AOPA or EAA would have them a meeting next day. He’s right. if they can’t get something as easy as just a meeting, it sadly proves FAA just doesn’t give a sh#t about us. Will not likely be writing a check for next years AOPA membership dues as it doesn’t seem to do much good. Sorry to see this project end and for such stupid reasons. Distrust FAA even more now.
One aspect of your proposal that I did not see mentioned is what the manufacturers of those old airframes, that you’re going to save, think about it. Typically, Cessna doesn’t like others modifying their airframes because it exposes them to even greater liability issues than they already have. These manufacturers also have some influence with the FAA.
I don’t believe in conspiracies but it does seem like FAA does have process to protect big companies like Lycoming form competition while not forcing them to make updated products, especially those that can decrease cost and be better for environment. If AOPA can’t help, can someone demand appointment with FAA administrator?
The FAA has the reputation of NOT doing anything until someone dies, unfortunately. It sounds like the FAA is trying to eliminate general aviation by letting it die a slow death
I’m reminded of the tongue-in-cheek comment (?) of an FAA inspector when appearing at my airport for a documents ramp check, “Hi. We’re from the FAA and we’re here to help.”
I did see a Porsch engine in a 172 at Sun and Fun years ago but being a Porsch it cost as much or more than the Lycoming engine. I would love to buy one your your V-8 engine for my 1962 C-172. Let me know when we can order one. May you need Elon Musk in his new role for Trump to push the FAA to reconsider or offer it under a license to you.
It seems that writing to Trump and Musk is the only way to move this forward. When most of the personnel of these government agencies have been DOGE’d then maybe we will get the innovative process needed to revitalize GA.
The New Administration looks like the best opportunity to bring new light on the old bias of the FAA. Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, they will co-lead this department, tasked with slashing waste, reducing bureaucracy, and improving overall government operations. Maybe a hammer will work where diplomacy failed. Mr. Musk understands the issues with the FAA and updating to newer technologies for advancement in GA and Space launches/manned vehicles. Former President Trump is very familiar in dealings with bureaucracy and the different departments of Washington D.C.’s alphabet soup.
If tax dollars are paying these people with the FAA, and they don’t respond to
us the people, THEN YOUR FIRED. This is why Trump is back in office, we are tired of this type zero function people.
The FAA is like the IRS … Worthless.
Truly a shame this didn’t get anywhere. I have questions like how did you get the PSRU to survive? What is the service interval on that PSRU? Any harmonics issues with the crankshafts? Even without the certified market I would think that a firewall forward package that is an alternative to the standard LyCon options would sell extremely well in the experimental world. Many pilots seem to be looking at experimental and moving from certified.
I am a little surprised that you haven’t tried what immediately came to my mind, to contact Congress members on the relevant committees about FAA inaction/non-reponsiveness. That would seem well within their purview. While I can understand your fatigue after such a long struggle, I also think your project is valuable enough that I greatly regret it’s termination. I hope to hear of success in this area in the future.
For the author & many of the contributors:
I love the EAA & EA-B aircraft, however, the engines & avionics are irrelevant to Certificaticated aircraft – hence the large “EXPERIMENTAL” placard required! What is required is engineering data defining the boundaries of the operational envelope, limitations, and more engineering data derived from operational experience showing function & reliability that addresses regulatory requirements and compliance. This must be obtained from test articles confirming to engineering specifications. Middle of the flight operation experience and the fact that “we installed it and it flew” is an ignorant argument with no relevance. It would be nice to see an applicant address what is required for certification (either by TCDS or STC) rather than act like something that works for the EA-B world is applicable to certified aircraft. Publications such as AC 23-8C are available and recommended for those ignorant of certification requirements.
You did not read earlier article which explains your criticism here. Please inform yourself prior to making such comments. These guys seem more than qualified and doing what’s required. Maybe you can contact your FAA friends and ask them to at least return their call so they can move forward.
You must be FAA because you are the problem here. This company has been at this for years and can’t even get a returned call from FAA. To call them ignorant when they have a flying plane that is decades ahead of anything your FAA has helped and in spite of the efforts to shut them and others down only proves the disconnect between FAA arrogance and public need. Earlier article states project got G1 issue paper to move forward with certification that shows they understand what’s needed engineering and demonstrating wise, but cannot get any further just because your FAA won’t even respond to request for call or meetings or makes them wait years for required responses. Your statement here clearly displays FAA process of using bureaucracy to kill GA for small businesses that don’t have the influence or $ to get you to just return a call. How do you know they have not done all you listed when you won’t even return a call? How would you know if they’ve flown this around the world upside down or through a hurricane or to the moon and back? I’ve work at FAA repair stations for years and with similar modifications and see first hand now only companies with enough funding to buy their own connected designees can get anything done. Designees like at Boeing that used all the testing you pointedly listed on the 737 max, yet it proved a disaster,!!!
The system doesn’t work when even new GA planes still use leaded gas and airframes haven’t changed in 50 years……what is it you don’t get?
Your arrogance only proves my point. I now see what these guys are up against and respect their commitment even more.
Sparrowhawk, I have read all 3 articles & they have not done what is required. The gave up on the STC process due to lack of funding (article 1). This may have come when they were issued the G-1 Issue paper and realized the magnitude of the project.
The reason you have 40 yr old airframes for an engine like this is because they were certified showing compliance to regulations that were written in blood from accident investigations. Engine reliability must meet similar standards not just flown around the patch giving instruction. Part 33 requirements are explicit. As for replacing the Standard AW with an Experimental AW in a certificated aircraft, that can be difficult. An A&P may not want to risk his ticket by signing off work but the owner cannot do the work (as on a E-AB) since the owner is not the builder. Unfortunately the FAA doesn’t hand out STCs. They are earned by demonstrating compliance through rigorous testing at the edges of the operational envelope not the middle – Maximum altitude, max temps, max pressures, etc. Engine failures at night, IFR, or even at 150 ft after takeoff must be statistically non-existent because they will still occur. If you think the middle of the envelope testing should be good enough, put your car in 1st gear and leave it there for your drive to work. How long until it overheats or worse? Better yet, put the family in the car and head out on vacation in 1st gear. That’s representative of what you’re demanding from a car engine in an airplane. Not to mention any weight penalty, CG restrictions, etc. that were never mentioned in any of the 3 articles.
Many great ideas and designs (of which this may be one) died not due to lack of desire, lack of need, or lack of want. The died due to a poor business model that failed to estimate the resources needed to accomplish the goal. I hope this project can be resurrected with proper backing (financial & certification experience) to develop the engineering data needed to get the project off the ground. There are some really good DERs out there that could help but didn’t see any evidence they had DER guidance.
Flight tester….suggest you read some of their Q&A on forums they participate. I asked them a few technical questions online and they answered. From their postings, they did complete the certification standards testing during development of experimental kit but needed funding to do it under STC application when FAA did it like the plan of selling kits to make certified into experimental.
Many of us in the experimental world have followed this project from the beginning and were excited about what it could do for many wanting to fly.
Many fellow engineers that have seen the plane up close remark that it’s a well thought out conversion with layers of redundancy. I think you and other FAA personnel are doing them, and us, a disservice in dismissing their efforts and progress. Perhaps you can call those FAA managers named in latest article and asks they reach out to them.
You say” FAA did it like the plan of selling kits to make certified into experimental.”. I believe you’re trying to say “the FAA did not like…” & you would be right. Under Part 21 regulations Experimental E-AB aircraft are a niche away from Experimental R&D, Show Compliance, or even Exhibition. And as such, it is illegal except in rare cases such a ex-military jet aircraft to be licensed Experimental without following the build requirements of E-AB as outlined in Part 21. Their attempt to do an STC was certifiable with all the work done. Delving off that track into an experimental engine on a certified airframe with the whole thing given an Experimental Airworthiness was doomed from day one due to Part 21 regulations.
Really? As FAA you read this and conclude these guys are ignorant? As far as I can tell they have done more to promote GA than FAA gas for decades. One would think you would offer to help using your position and inside contacts. Maybe they could do all the work you listed if they knew their own government was not trying to put them out of business for 4 years…. maybe they could have obtained funding if you did your job!!!!!!! This really shows the FAA culture and is shameful. As a taxpayer, I see nothing but a lazy, corrupt bunch of bureaucrats with their feet up on the desk conspiring how to shut down anyone that will cause them more work before collecting a pension. Shameful, really
Also, shame on AOPA and EAA that is the only collective voice we have and how little concern they are to FAA….. maybe it is time for both to start suing to get results.
Am I the only one enraged at this?
Well, you are the reason that people, myself included, are moving to experimental. Just another example of the govt, who we FUND, not responding to the needs of it’s citizens. I’ll finish the experimental, and I really don’t give a toss what you do after that. Keep killing GA though, carry on.
Why not go experimental? Sounds like a great choice for RV-10 or Bearhawk 4 or 5 builders!
The world of experimental aircraft is keeping General Aviation vibrant for we who are not billionaires who can afford million Dollar plus airplanes.
I can’t understand how these FAA staff personnel can simply ignore anyone, especially someone that can prove what they claim. Is there any kind of FAA complaint process they can use?
FAA FLIGHT TESTER….What a great FAA comment you made. So this company develops a flying plane that cost half to fly and gets rid of leaded fuels and their biggest challenge is having FAA shut them down and ignoring them until they shut down BUT instead of YOU offering to help by reaching out directly to anyone in FAA that could help or offering to help in any way, YOU spew out a litany of reasons why they can’t get even a call returned for last 5 years and then insult them? Fu7k you! You are the problem just like the rest of your counter parts mentioned and a disgraceful example of a public service. Its no wonder why we are stuck in the 50’s and will be for decades to come
Roger, thank you! I agree- it was a great comment and appreciate you recognizing it!
My response to Sparrowhawk is great too. By the way, these folks shut themselves down by not doing the required work. Sorry, it’s not easy, cheap work but it keeps people safe. I’m glad to see that everyone wants to write their Congressman because they can’t get a cheap engine. That’s much better than writing the Congressman demanding an investigation to find out why their family died when the cheap engine crapped out at the wrong time. By the way, you misspelled a word so back at you.
FAA Tester… as others said, you don’t understand the process these guys have tried. Please read other articles and past post regarding their efforts. There is no regulation prohibiting taking certified to experimental as long as it meets requirements of part 21. Others have done it for exhibition category such as seabees using the unique propulsion method for meeting exhibition requirement. These guys could do the same but to make a kit to resell to others is against FAA policy and they are afraid of getting violated and going broke in court to prove the point, and it doesn’t seem EAA or AOPA will be helpful for some reason. If they did get a G1 then the project can meet certified requirements, but they don’t mention cost other than stating somewhere it was doable. It was FAA shutting down their development and ignoring them for years that actually shut them down. Many auto conversions were certified per part 33 and 21…. it is possible, but these companies had a lot of money to get FAA influence and hire DERs and DARs which essentially is their private FAA. There is no requirement to use designees, and any applicant can work directly with FAA to get things certified, but they don’t want to and everyone in the industry knows you must hire designees, even if you don’t really need them, to get things done.
Whether they could meet the certification requirements in G1, or have the money to do it, is irrelevant to me and most here it seems. The problem is key FAA seeming conspired to ignore their efforts and acted 100% opposite of what they should have done and the reason they are paid. And this is obviously not the first time they used such tactics against others when you examine the sorry progress GA has made in last century. Perhaps reach out to them if you may be able to help them.
These guys, and likely many others, could have brought great modernization and
safety features to GA, and will deter others from trying in the future. AS a result we see other nations developing innovation and chipping away at our dominance.
Maybe the solution to the massive bureaucratic and corrupt FAA is a complete overhaul and house cleaning. Hopefully, through the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy will triumph innovation and cut through the red tape. Huge government bureaucracies like the FAA have, over the decades, been corrupted by special interests to the detriment of the people with whom they are mandated to protect and serve.
I think article is right, the big companies have no interest in GA and haven’t for decades. Small companies like this is best hope for innovation, especially for lowering cost. I can’t believe FAA has ability to simply ignore them or worst. I now think there is corruption in FAA protecting these long established companies like Lycoming when you consider how expensive and out dated GA has been for so long. If they were in charge of cars we would still be driving 1970s clunkers. Thank you FAA, great job again.
I thought the FAA worked for us. Amazing how they can just blow this guy off as well as AOPA and EAA. We need people who are thinking outside the box. The FAA has been killing us for decades, in more ways than 1, and here’s a prime example.
Cancelling my AOPA membership for sure, as it seems they can do little for GA pulling out of the spiral GA has been in for a long time. I think these guys should sue the FAA. The FAA personnel mentioned are higher ups and set the tone and are a miserable example of leadership and understanding why they are there.
I hope this program finds a way to live on, it’s desperately needed.
Some readers suggested that we should do more than just sit back and make suggestions to the author of this article that he write Congress, Elon Musk or GA organizations such as AOPA, etc.
.
Taking that advice, I penned a letter to AOPA (who have dropped the ball on this) in hopes that it may reinvigorate them. After all AOPA made a big push to get Basic Med, so why not a big push to fix the airplane engine problem. Minus some introductory paragraphs, here is the text of that letter:
“[What I would] like to bring to your attention is an area I believe AOPA should focus on that would significantly lower operating costs for the piston engine sector of GA. The stumbling block is legacy design piston power aircraft engines that are too expensive and inefficient as well as being less reliable than their modern counterparts. This is something well known to AOPA and other general aviation support organizations such as EAA.
“Thanks to GPS and significant advances in electronics, we have seen avionics upgrades for GA that are short of miraculous. But our aircraft are still being powered by antiquated piston engines that haven’t seen a major technological innovation since the 1950’s. This is in stark contrast to major advances in piston engine technology in the automobile and boating industry. So it is reasonable to ask why these advancements haven’t happened firewall forward unlike the technological revolution happening on the cockpit side.
“And as a result, it is apparent that the single engine piston engine GA sector is experiencing a slow death spiral with skyrocketing operating costs being a major cause. These increases cannot be offset by technology improvements in other areas. It is becoming too expensive for the average person to fly because of this. It is very difficult to budget $50,000 or more for a new aircraft engine, knowing that for the same amount, you could buy a nice automobile with an engine that would last far longer and never need replacing.
“The major contributors to the engine problem are FAA certification requirements and the two major players, Lycoming and Continental who are incentivized to produce antiquated designs rather than develop advanced engine designs with efficiency and safety features common to the automobile industry. Besides AOPA and EAA, many aviation enthusiasts understand this problem and see a solution where an existing automobile engine could be easily modified to replace the dinosaur engines we currently are forced to use.
“In AOPA Pilot magazine, you highlighted one example in the September 2021 issue: “Looks like a Skyhawk, Sounds like a Corvette.” This refers to the Corsair Project designed to provide an automobile engine substitute for single piston engine GA aircraft. A more recent article, “The $20/hour Cessna 172 experiment—Update” posted in airfactsjournal.com describes just how difficult and discouraging it can be for the small entrepreneur to work with the FAA in trying to bring this to market.
“While EAA can live on through its focus on the experimental market where engine options other than Lycoming and Continental are a reality, the little guy sector of AOPA, those pilots owning and renting single engine piston aircraft, is being priced out of the market. What will be left is a much smaller sector of wealthy people, able to afford turbine powered machines or to pay the heavy costs of flying piston powered machines. This is simply not a viable option if AOPA wants to maintain its relationship with the average citizen pilot. If nothing is done, we know the result will be that of Europe where your freedom to fly has become an empty promise.
“I’ve enjoyed 35 years of little guy flying and have come to recognize this problem for what it is and how serious it has become. I am asking AOPA to take the initiative and forge a firewall forward solution that will make flying for this important sector of aviation economical once again. The engine technology is readily available to make it happen. It just takes a large organization such as AOPA to overcome the roadblocks that are preventing it from happening. Basic Med should serve as an excellent example of how AOPA can succeed in slaying the dragon. It’s time for AOPA to remove the sword from its scabbard and tackle this problem head on.”
Jack
agree absolutely Jack. I have spoken to several others in GA about this and the reason for FAA lack of progress runs gammit from Cessna doesn’t want the extra liability or competition to their owned Lycoming division to FAA doesn’t have or want cost of supporting GA resurgence. whatever reasons, it’s hard not to make case FAA isn’t conspiring within itself to shrink GA over last 30 years just considering cost, participation, tech. ect.
the last article by same author actually resulted in many letters to FAA in their behalf, including
from me, but none that I know of ever got a reply and no mention of a reply in this article. so, also likely filed in trash bin as well.
imagine being able to rent a c172 for about $60 hour and uptick in participation, and need for more FAA staff and resources and many trading in the old Lycoming for a new engine that cost less. it’s a lose lose to for them.
AOPA did push for basic med, mostly because GA owners were aging out and not able to maintain a 3 class medical, resulting in a sizeable loss of membership and those spending money in the GA. they were not asking for monopolies to update products or reduce costs or allowing disruptive competitors to upset a good thing they both had going. The industry as a result supported it.
The FAA has listened to those they are cozy with and no one on the inside had the courage to stand up to call fowl.
This FAA method of suppression is amplified as small innovation can’t get investment to pay to play because of FAA shutting them out and no one is going to invest in a company requiring FAA certification when it won’t return a call or do what they are needed to do.
I don’t have many years left in GA but feel bad for leaving the new generation such a broken system that so few will have opportunity to enjoy.
just read all 3 of the AIr Facts articles, as well as the AOPA article where they actually flew it, and watched the videos ! I must be missing something! WTF? How could the FAA just blow this guy off, and AOPA? What a disgrace. I always heard for decades the FAA wants to kill GA and after this I am convinced too! How do we contact these FAA “civil servants” directly?
I have followed this project since reading first article in AOPA with excitement as my “vintage” C172 was approaching TBO and eager for some new, cheaper and cleaner engine. I looked into the Continental diesel engine but that was north of $100K and operating cost wasn’t that much cheaper. The factory zero time engine is now north of $30k for some new parts but the same performance and avgas. These FAA leaders should be fired and appoint someone who actually wants to do the job of making GA viable again, AND SAFER! When I installed a new EXPENSIVE panel with bigger horizon I felt well more comfortable flying at night (also installed a Garmin G5 as backup, which cost 2X that of the experimental modern for exact same thing….what a deal). I really wanted to add auto pilot but it was too expensive and hope to add it in a few years. I would agree with earlier comments, OUR FAA has been killing GA, AND ITS PILOTS, for decades and seems to be continuing on without any concern or shame until there is nothing left except for millionaires. I would write AOPA who I have been wasted/paying dues for decades but that doesn’t seem to do anything either. It really is a disgrace.
spot on about the check ride SCAM!!!!!!!!!!! I had to wait 2 months for myt private check ride (1st appt cancelled due to weather and this was soonest )!!! Then had to pay $1500 CASH!!!!!! It cost me thousands staying current and local FAA office just told my CFI that I could go anywhere in the country a get a checkride as they will not do the ride and didn’t give a flying FU%K that it would cost me even more to rent a plane and fly hours! The comments above are absolutely right the FAA doesn’t give a dam about GA and will do anything to make it so expensive and difficult that only a few millionaires will be able to fly. HOW MANY GUYS LIKE THIS WERE ALSO TOLD TO FU*K OFF BY FAA OVER TIME???????? Both my CFI’s told me the FAA is the reason why Im paying a fortune to fly a 50 year old beat up plane and waiting months for check ride. I have only been flying for 2 years but its obvious to me why so many say the FAA is corrupt.,,,, BECAUSE IT IS!!!!! Im financing my training and taking work off (and pay) to train, so the extra time cost more lost pay and cost more that I will have to pay interest on,,,, FOR WHAT? FAA and these specific so called leaders are corrupt and need to be fired and replaced with someone that wants to help taxpayers, not FU&K them!!!!!!!!!
between my private and CFI checkride I had to wait almost 2 months for each checkride as my school does not let me solo the plane overnight. So i should have had all my rides done 4-5 months earlier. It was frustration and cost me probably $2-3k more to keep ready. My CFI had over 2k hours and 5 years instruction experience and applied for examiner, and he never got a call back. The local examiner is former FAA and can’t help but think they are just protecting their own.
I finally went to a CFI program that advertised examiner on staff (one of the owners of school). The checkride cost was about same but the dual and rental were much higher than other places, but everyone was there because they could get the checkride done quickly and and knew the higher cost was simply because of that. SO yes, there is a a lot of us who know the FAA is a corrupt agency that protects their friends and companies like cessna or piper from having to spend any money catching up with the rest of the world. You don’t think this happens in the USA.
These guys are just another example of this. It sucks for so many of my students that quit because they just cant afford to rent an old obsolete plane, many giving up on sincerely a real dream. I envision these same FAA slackers rejoicing every time a new pilot quits or an aircraft is parted out because it’s worth more in parts. … less work for them! I wish I had the money or contacts to help the writer break through this corruption as it would be a real game changer for so many, especially those like me looking for cheaper ways to build time. Sorry and disappointed AOPA was worthless and rethinking my dues.
As others have asked, how can these Faa managers simply ignore anyone, especially someone that developed they say they have wanted for decades? I thought they worked for the public?
I cannot believe they can be as corrupt as others say here, but after reading some comments it does make sense why GA piston is so obsolete compared to other markets. They even blow AOPA off and don’t care. It’s no wonder no one wants to try improving GA.
between my private and CFI checkride I had to wait almost 2 months for each checkride as my school does not let me solo the plane overnight. So i should have had all my rides done 4-5 months earlier. It was frustration and cost me probably $2-3k more to keep ready. My CFI had over 2k hours and 5 years instruction experience and applied for examiner, and he never got a call back. The local examiner is former FAA and can’t help but think they are just protecting their own.
I finally went to a CFI program that advertised examiner on staff (one of the owners of school). The checkride cost was about same but the dual and rental were much higher than other places, but everyone was there because they could get the checkride done quickly and and knew the higher cost was simply because of that. We all knew we were paying higher rates because we could get the check ride when done. SO yes, there is a a lot of us who know the FAA is a corrupt agency that protects their friends and companies like cessna or piper from having to spend any money catching up with the rest of the world. You don’t think this happens in the USA.
These V8 engine guys are just another example of this. It sucks for so many of my students that quit because they just cant afford to rent an old obsolete plane, many giving up on sincerely a real dream. I envision these same FAA slackers rejoicing every time a new pilot quits or an aircraft is parted out because it’s worth more in parts. … less work for them! I wish I had the money or contacts to help the writer break through this corruption as it would be a real game changer for so many, especially those like me looking for cheaper ways to build time. Sorry and disappointed AOPA was worthless and rethinking my dues.
I don’t know if this engine can meet the FAA requirements to certify it, but modern car engines are more reliable than aircraft piston engines statiscally and can’t imagine they would be less reliable on a plane. Regardless, what the FAA here has done betrays the values of this nation and their very job description. The FAA used to be world leader in GA, now it seems they are the very reason its been frozen in time, except for costs which surpasses most other engine markets.
I always thought this was because of liability, but this company’s amazing efforts and FAA stonewalling proves otherwise. I too now imagine how many other innovations were shut down by the very government agency, and in this case specific persons, paid and charged to promote it. I agree with other comments, this is well beyond spots of incompetence in FAA, but a consorted effort to protect GA’s dying status quo as they have done for decades. The FAA administrator needs to overhaul this department and clean house.
Most interesting article I have ever read on why GA is so expensive and old. I also thought it was because of liability, but heard that FAA didn’t doesn’t want GA. This guys experience I think lays blame where deserved. I traded my certified for a experimental and never looked back. Everything is cheaper and easier, likely because FAA has less say in it. I couldn’t afford to still fly otherwise.
How can we get the contact info for these FAA public servants to ask they help this company?
I now have invested over $75,000 in my training with probably $30,000 to go. Our school boust our planes are less than 10 years old and cost over $200 per hour and I also rent a 1970s c172 at a club for $115 hour to save where possible …although the newer is nicer to fly. they are both the same exact airplane in all things important! They even both need the same toxic gas! I asked my parents if they ever used leaded gas for their car, and they didn’t even know what I was talking about. I will owe over $110,000 plus interest when done and there was cheaper and cleaner options?
this guy made a c172 that cost $25 per hour to fly and take regular, not even premium, gas?????? and FAA tells him to F off?? WHAT A FAA SCAM!! I know why every CFI I had says the FAA is out to fuck you. What a disgrace!! Why can’t anything be done about this? this corruption is costing me $50,000+, someone explain this please. what can be done?? I’m pissed
How can this be? Why would these FAA employees just ignore this? Don’t they work for us? Things like this could make a real difference in so many ways to us trying to afford to fly and keep small airplanes available to us that can’t afford to own. These FAA guys should be fired just for not doing their job but ignoring the people that pay their salaries and trying to make changes.
FAA needs to investigate this and hire people that want to work for us, not protect old companies serving the same dish for 50 years. How do we make them listen?
I also find this difficult to understand and had followed this V8 conversion since the first article with great hope because I was thinking about selling my share in a c182 because I just couldn’t afford to fly it. I emailed them and asked why would the hourly cost be with their engine kit and told between $30-40 depending on gas price including engine reserve. I was excited and spoke to my partners about converting as soon as it became available even if we had to go experimental and all agreed.
Real sorry FAA continues to shoot down anything that may help GA survive and continue to wait for the monopolys to do something better even though they’ve done nothing for half a century.
How can these FAA leaders simply ignore this guy and others like him? Simply because they have done this for decades and have no shame and I would argue their mission is to shrink GA out of existence except for few millionaires that wish to partake, and keep the small piece of pie for the wealthy few legacy companies they buddy with and have the inside relationship. It seems to be a consorted effort without any method to appeal.
After 20 years s an aircraft owner, I expect this from the FAA but not AOPA that is supposed to fight for us in these exact situations yet can’t even get a meeting with these FAA public employees. What a joke, I’m done paying for AOPA to fly their jet around and fight meaningless battles as GA is shut down and all else become meaningless.
The rich will always be able to fly and fight their battles, AOPA is there for the rest of us but this disappointing effort proves they are anything but.
I and many more appreciate the efforts of companies like this to disrupt an unproductive and monopolized market, and sad our own tax dollars are spent to shut it down. These FAA employees need to be held accountable and the culture needs to change as many argue.
I am burring myself in debt to make my pilot job dream happen. Im paying absolutely STUPID money for a beat old antique c172 at $170/hour and recently learned just how bad lead gas is for the planet and people…. especially those living next to an airport like my family. This company solved EVERY PROBLEM GA HAS in gas, noise, and cost to make it accepted. We should be flying for $40-$50 per hour instead of $175 and not polluting the planet, but these named sorry ass public servants who are supposed to be working for tax payers and not big business by putting them out of business by conspiring and colluding among their co-workers. This is a crime! I’ve heard the FAA’s mission is to kill GA since my private pilot training 3 years ago, now I totally believe it and disgusted and freaking mad as hell. I figured this when I waited 2 months for ny last checkride and paid $1500 cash for the privilege. The FAA- GA relationship is nothing but a scam and all about protecting monopolies like a crime syndicate. I can’t wait to get an airline job so I don’t ever have to deal with GA again, and feel sorry for future pilots that will be paying even more as they get fleeced. I only joined AOPA 2 years ago and will stop that worthless nonsense too.
I guess the tax payers work for the FAA now. This gentleman has reached out to several FAA departments and the actual head administrator and nothing. If not corruption, then what do you call it? Who do you complain to?? It’s no wonder GA is dead.
What a great way to promote GA, have the same agency responsible for promoting it, shut down the so few trying to promote it. These corrupt FAA EMPLOYEES need to be fired and get people that want the job. The FAA is so beyond repair they feel no need to reply even to AOPA. I think this guy should sue the FAA and specifically these officials for dereliction of duty. AOPA should fund that!
I was always told GA piston was outdated because no one tries to modernize it due to the certification high cost. But this makes it clear this high cost is a tool FAA uses to restrict improvements in order to kill it, and its pilots and passengers. And if some small company with a real solution that doesn’t have the money or influence to get FAA assistance, even though it’s a proven solution, the systems shuts it down . But Boeing can continue to fly planes that are killing hundreds without doing anything,
After owning airplanes for many years and seeing no real new products that help the older planes other than expensive flat panels screens and GPS , all of which don’t make sense to install because of the ridiculous cost to install because it Faa “certified” and none of which do anything to make my planes fly cheaper, quieter, less toxic.
Taxpayers should expect our public employees to do what’s best for us, not protect lazy greedy old manufacturers that have no concern about making it better. Worst yet, shut down new companies trying to bring in new innovation simply because it may make their job more busy and start growing GA participation. These FAA guys had the job to help innovate GA but absolute the opposite. If this isn’t government corruption, than what is? Maybe he needs to bribe them like in Russia or some other corrupt country for them to do their job. The FAA administrator needs to do an investigation and overhaul this process and fire these FAA employees killing GA, its pilots and passengers. If this guy, AOPA, or EAA can’t get and answer, then who? What a corrupt organization.
absolutely a corrupt division of the federal government. How else can you explain this? The whole agency seems determined to shut down the only possible solution in terms of price and eliminating lead fuel anyone has come up with in decades.
everyone always ask why are piston planes such antiques? Here’s your answer. Good to finally put a name to those responsible….there needs to be an investigation into such corruption by someone outside the corrupt FAA managers!!!!! FAA war on GA continues against any innovation or safety enhancements and doesn’t care how many they kill in the process. Their own remarks about how affordable autopilots could save many lives if we’re not for certification costs without doing anything about it demonstrates this, not to mention just how GA is dead.
im disgusted as a tax payer and someone that sold their humble c152 because even that became unaffordable. I miss it. Won’t pay anymore AOPA dues either after reading this too.
the first article was so exciting and made so much sense to me as I had just finished my private license and dreamed of owning a plane with a friend that was also training. We are both car gear heads and it made so much sense as a solution to lowering cost and the modern features (at least compared to aircraft). I’m now a CFI swimming in debt and pissed that FAA went out of their way to screw this guy over with no other solution.
I also see how FAA long term policy of keeping examiners in short supply to further increase pilot costs in time and money takes a tow on my students. Theres about a 2 month wait in my area for examiner, who, funny as it seems, is retired FAA and making way more then he ever did working….and in cash!!!!!. Several schools complained to FSDO to add examiners but told they can’t add any more because they can’t oversee their work. ..what a bunch of BS. As others said. FAA mission is to kill GA and protect monopolizes to price gouge. The FAA is not our friend! President needs to clean house starting with these slackies and find real public servants that want to help the taxpayer. I now see no reason to be a member of AOPA after reading this and learning the president makes over 1 million $ and has a jet. They don’t seem to need my $. These V8 guys were screwed over and we all should be pissed and there’s probably plenty more like them that suffered same fate over last 20 years.
Agreed, after reading this I read other articles and viewed their website and YouTube. These guys were treated shamefully by the very people paid to help them. I can’t understand why FAa wants to kill GA, but know why it’s so expensive to rent old obsolete airplanes now… great job FAA! They need to be reminded who they work for.
How can the FAA just ignore someone like this? They are public servants, their job is to help the public. Are they that arrogant they feel no need to interact with the public, only big companies they have been working with for many years? Corruption is a strong word, but as others have said here, there is no other word that describes what they have put this guy through after years and reaching out to so many departments with the same result.
Its this corruption that is costing me over $30K to simply replace some bearings, rings, pistons, ect on my 35 year old piper that will work the exact same as the new engine did 35 years ago. These FAA managers need to be fired and replaced with people that understand they are there for us, not big industry that couldn’t care less about GA survival. Its alarming that AOPA was ignored as well. At this point, who do you call?
This engine could have been a huge game changer for so many. No huge company has tried to do anything new, and the SPECIFIC FAA director that is charged with bringing innovation simply just ignores anyone without the inside contacts or enough money to what seems to be needed to buy enough influence to get a meeting and just DO THEIR JOB. As a taxpayer and long term GA business owner I am disgusted and glad to see someone is actually calling out this corruption and putting names to the huge agency. I have seen so many small aircraft business struggle and shut down, leaving few newcomers wanting to buy into or continue businesses just because GA has has been in a death spiral for decades and there is little hope of anything changing. FAA is not solely responsible for GA’s spiral, but it set the stage for small aircraft GA failure leaving few wanting to invest and make a difference. Kudos to this company from trying, we need more of them.
I am sure I speak for many after reading this…… how can this be legal? Can this guy sue these FAA slackers? If the head FAA leader doesn’t care, then who do you call? How do you call this out? How do you get change? I say sue the FAA and these managers as it seems that’s the only way to get their attention.
FAA wants GA, at least piston, (not the rich private jets, turboprops), to die simply because they get no funding for it and whatever they spend on it comes out of general budget. Not just certification staff, but ATC, keeping small airports open and certifying instrument ground gear, inspectors needed for harassing people (they way beyond that in the case of this article’s author), ect…. The very state of GA over the last 40 years proves the point.
I see little if anything AOPA has done to make any real change to revive GA, and I stopped being a member long ago after learning most of the dues were going to pay their executive staff. I was outraged to learn the president’s salary was about $1M back then, now its almost double that, and AOPA has their own jet for them to fly around in…what’s that cost? SUrely there are far better ways to spend money to further the cause. No one here is going to risk losing a good thing for themselves.
This article just puts names to the corruption efforts to kill GA. Anyone thats been in GA for anytime knows this is standard operating procedure for the FAA. I hope, but doubt, AOPA will get pressure from members reading this article to step up to the plate and fulfil their mission at the risk of alienating their FAA buddies next time something like this engine comes along.
Let me get this straight….. the FAA themselves state that safety equipment like simple economically available autopilots for older aircraft would have saved many lives every year but the very thing stopping this is the self confessed high price of FAA certification?!! How many crashes could have been avoided…. how many lives saved if they just followed their own research and study? What government agency would self conclude they are the problem in bringing safer vehicles to its citizens then do nothing about it and knowingly accept the consequences????? If the DOT did this with cars, they would go to prison. How does the FAA get away with this?
I thought this level of corruption existed only in other countries. I always knew FAA wants to end GA after owning a couple of airplanes, but didnt think they didn’t care how many pilots and passengers they killed along the way. I am livid! I would complain to AOPA to do something but doesn’t seem they have much influence with FAA . I am amazed at the flagrant and shameless efforts of a government agency we pay for to knowingly do this. This is criminal. How do we do something about this? Call 60 minutes or newspapers?
Really depressing reading this. I had to stop flying the few times a month I did, first because the FBO stopped renting airplanes out and then later it got just too expensive with family normal expenses. I really miss it and looked forward to the dates I had scheduled flying with my dad or friend to a quick lunch or cruising along the coast. My adult son still talks about the family trip in a rented 172 when he was 12. I am sorry fewer and fewer will ever be able to afford this. We need to find ways like this to make flying way more affordable so so many more people can experience it. It shouldn’t be just for the wealthy. We have such an increasing gap between the rich and lower middle class, we don’t need more. I hope this gentleman gets the assistance from these FAA employees he needs.
After reading this and my family being a small aircraft owner for much of my life, and have kids training for a pilot career, it’s hard not to believe this is protocol for FAA when it comes to small aircraft when comparing to the all the new innovations in tech for all other industries, even cheap motorcycles or boat motors, especially considering the costs. My kid will owe close to $100k for all basic ratings, and spent extra months just waiting for checkrides, costing even more.
We somehow have all been conditioned over the last 2-3 decades that this is how it must be, for the FAA knows what’s best for us and to trust the process. This argument would hold true if GA accidents in FAA certified rarely occur, but that’s not the case. For the FAA themselves to know that simple, cheap improvements would save lives if the FAA related costs were not so high, then do absolutely nothing about it regardless of lives being needlessly loss, is beyond incompetence and becomes criminal. If a private company acted so reckless, leaders would go to jail. But, this is how it seems the FAA has operated for more than 30 years and we all, including it seems AOPA and EAA, accept this as there is no other way.
Especially after reading these articles, I am even more convinced the FAA GA internal policy is to protect the manufacturers from having to improve and or lower costs as a means to continue GA’s extinction, as well as make it as costly to get a pilots license as possible to further reduce those wanting to try. In other countries we would call this corruption, but here its just what we have been conditioned to think how the system must operate when it comes to FAA and GA.
Shame on these FAA higher-ups who allow this corruption to continue without even feeling any responsibility to respond to the public. Shame on the FAA administrators who know but do nothing. Shame for the only voice we collectively have in AOPA to accept the status quo- learning AOPA leadership salaries I won’t be renewing or seeing their effectiveness here.
I hope the writer and his company finds a way to keep going, but now understanding what they are up against can’t blame them considering it a lost cause. Hard to think how much better and safer GA would be if such innovations were supported by the agency charged with doing just that.
I was always astounded with the technological differences between the planes I rented and that of my cheap cars over the years. My cars made leaps and bounds almost every year in new gadgets, better emissions and mileage, and safety features like air bags and the roll bar type chassis that allow people to walk away from the most mangled wreckage— yet the newest Piper or Cessnas remained the same with no such features or insignificant improvements. I guess now it was the government forcing car makers do better and likely the competition from new foreign car makers that also played a part. FAA seems to have done the opposite over the same time period, and apparently still do. In this case, shutting this innovator down and basically prevent him from getting the funding needed to play their game and protect the do-nothing-new established plane companies. No wonder there are few real efforts to help GA recover. These FAA folks need to retire or be fired and replaced with those that want to actually find solutions regardless if it hurts their status quo or increases their workload. As many said before, this is shameful and a disgrace on our federal government. Hopefully a new administration can do better.
I get that regardless of anything GA is not going to be affordable to all. But for the actual FAA to shut down anyone trying to make it more affordable or safer is just corruption against the very people they work for. As others said, how many lives could have been saved with simple things as auto pilots or bigger horizons. FAA seems to be more focused on killing us then saving us. These FAA employees, and they are employees, need to be fired or worst. This has gone all too long. and I won’t be renewing my AOPA status as it doesn’t seem like they need the money!