Is Cost The Real Barrier To Participation In Aviation?

By Ric Peri, AEA Vice President Of Government And Industry Affairs

When the August issue of Avionics News was published, along with my column explaining my view of a new renaissance in general aviation, the first comment I received was an old one: It simply costs too much. Airplanes are too expensive; fuel is too expensive; airport logistics are too expensive.
The response specifically stated, “When I started flying in 1970, a Cessna 150 sold for approximately $20,000 and fuel was approximately $1.70 a gallon; 38 hours of aircraft rental and instruction to achieve my private pilot’s license cost just more than $800. In 1981, a new Beech Bonanza cost approximately $180,000.”

In response to these comments, let’s examine the Consumer Price Index inflation calculator published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, not to argue the point but to raise the discussion further.

So let’s look at the numbers. Starting with an original LSA, the Cessna 150, this, according to the author, sold for about $20,000 in 1970. When adjusted for inflation, that $20,000 equates to roughly $120,695, or right in line with today’s light sport airplane marketplace.

And what about aviation gasoline at $1.70 per gallon in 1970? Well, back then, I was pumping gas at full-service stations in Southern California, and it seems to me that automobile gas was significantly less in cost. In fact, the auto fuel price back in 1970 averaged 35 cents per gallon. And during the frequent gas wars, I remember prices dropping to 25 cents per gallon. Even though auto gas has increased 10 times to $3.50 per gallon, by applying the CPI calculator to adjust the 1970 avgas prices to today’s dollars, we would be paying $10.26 a gallon.

In 1981, the $180,000 for a new Bonanza adjusts to $463,661 today, and the $800 for flight instruction equates to $4,827.

So, while I’ve certainly heard the arguments, I propose it’s not the price but rather what we get for the price. It’s the lack of technology that discourages the next generation of pilots. What got me thinking about this was an article in the October 2013 edition of Motor Trends. Ron Kiino wrote about the BMW 320 30 years after its introduction. What caught my eye wasn’t the performance of the 320, but rather the price. In 1981 dollars, the $12,895 base price equates to $33,045 in today’s dollars, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator. That is the same price for a new 320 today.

It’s not just about the price of the car, but rather the technology you get for the price. This is something aviation, specifically light general aviation, simply cannot compete with. We’re flying with 60-year-old designs with technologies (or rather lack of technologies) that have been banned in the automotive industry for more than 30 years. Why?

Our electronics, while somewhat better, are still no utopia. The “new generation” touchscreen avionics are certainly a step ahead of yesterday’s, but, seriously? I’m writing this month’s column on a $300 iPad Mini at 34,000 feet somewhere over Nevada while listening to my selection of music. Why is the gap between our avionics and consumer electronics growing wider?

The recent Part 23 Aviation Rulemaking Committee had the mandate from the Federal Aviation Administration to double safety at half the cost. While this is mostly a political sound bite, I have doubts that the FAA will reach this fiscal goal. However, the safety goal is achievable and admirable. Yes, I completely support the doubling of safety. Aviation should have, and must have, a lower fatality rate; we need to mandate survivability technology. In a period while the accident (and fatality) rate in general aviation has been relatively flat, the fatality rate in the automotive sector per hundred million vehicle miles traveled has fallen from 5.5 to 1.7 in the period from the mid-1960s to 1994. When I ask various original equipment manufacturers why they haven’t installed some of the technologies that currently exist or that we see in the automotive industry, the response is generally the same; the customer doesn’t want to pay for it. The work of the Part 23 ARC isn’t going to change that.

I suggest the issue is four-fold in reality: the lack of technology, the time and cost necessary to certify the technology, the general inability to install the technology, and the lack of safety mandates.

In October, I had the privilege of touring the Argonne National Laboratory in the Chicago suburb of Lemont. Argonne is a U. S. Department of Energy laboratory, a multidisciplinary science and engineering research center where researchers work alongside experts from industry, academia and other government laboratories to address challenges in clean energy, environment, technology and national security. My tour focused on the technology center.

A primary objective of the laboratory is to promote the economic interests of the U.S. by facilitating development, transfer, and use of federally owned or originated technology to industry for public benefit and to leverage DOE resources through partnering with industry. During the tour, we focused on transportation technologies, primarily with alternative fuel vehicles. As a bit of a tech geek, the tour was really cool, if not a bit disappointing. In aviation, we don’t have an equivalent.

Sure, we have the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the FAA research center in Atlantic City. But are they truly equal? According to its website, the purpose of NASA’s Aerospace Technical Facility Inventory is to facilitate the sharing of specialized capabilities within the aerospace research/engineering community primarily within NASA. NASA claims as spinoff technologies to include memory foam, freeze-dried food, firefighting equipment, emergency “space blankets,” Dustbusters, cochlear implants and now Speedo’s LZR Racer swimsuits. NASA claims there are more than 1,650 other spinoffs in the fields of computer technology, environment and agriculture, health and medicine, public safety, transportation, recreation, and industrial productivity. But I don’t see any improvements in general aviation technologies.

The FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center serves as the FAA national scientific test base for research and development, test and evaluation, and verification and validation in air traffic control, communications, navigation, airports, aircraft safety, and security. The Technical Center is the primary facility supporting the nation’s Next Generation Air Transportation System, or NextGen.

So again, where is the general aviation research technology center?

In 2010, the Center for Automotive Research at Stanford University announced it had developed a robotic Audi car that drives itself as a contender for the Pikes Peak race. In October 2005, the Stanford Racing Team was awarded $2 million for being the first team to complete the 132-mile DARPA Grand Challenge course with a robotic Volkswagen Touareg R5. That was eight years ago.

Where does this technology end up? Try finding a car today without some level of ACAS, or automotive crash avoidance system. In fact, many of the higher-priced cars have an active ACAS where the system actually brakes the car in an effort to avoid accidents.

Have you noticed the BMW Head-Up Display? It projects relevant driving information directly into the driver’s line of sight. This allows the driver to process up to 50 percent faster and keeps the attention where it belongs – on the road.

And what about the automotive backup camera? In 2010, the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency estimated that adding a backup camera would save 95 to 112 lives per year. And without a mandate, according to Edmunds.com, backup cameras were standard or optional in 77 percent of 2013 model-year vehicles.
Where is our leadership?

The FAA handbook FAA-H-8083-19A states that the FAA’s major roles include, among other things, “encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology.” Now before you jump on this and counter with, “No, that was removed from the FAA mandate as a result of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996,” I suggest you review the law. The law did change the agency’s dual mandate of “regulating safety and promoting industry development.” However, it retained the mandate of “encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology.”

TITLE 49 SUBTITLE VII - AVIATION PROGRAMS, PART A - AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY, SUBPART I – GENERAL, CHAPTER 401 - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Sec. 40101. (d) Safety Considerations in Public Interest. – In carrying out subpart III of this part and those provisions of subpart IV applicable in carrying out subpart III, the administrator shall consider the following matters, among others, as being in the public interest:

• Assigning, maintaining, and enhancing safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce
• Regulating air commerce in a way that best promotes safety and fulfills national defense requirements.
• Encouraging and developing civil aeronautics, including new aviation technology.
• Controlling the use of the navigable airspace and regulating civil and military operations in that airspace in the interest of the safety and efficiency of both of those operations.
• Consolidating research and development for air navigation facilities and the installation and operation of those facilities.
• Developing and operating a common system of air traffic control and navigation for military and civil aircraft.
• Providing assistance to law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of laws related to regulation of controlled substances, to the extent consistent with aviation safety.

These four factors previously mentioned can all be resolved by FAA leadership as provided by the Federal Aviation Act. The FAA should lead a private-public research in new general aviation technologies; the current “risk averse” approach to new technology is contrary to the mandate of “encouraging and developing new aviation technology.” Reversing this will reverse the time and cost necessary to certify the technology, as well as the general inability to install new technologies. And finally, by taking the leadership necessary to develop life-saving technologies and taking a proactive position on mandating some of these, survivability technologies will save lives.

Simply maintaining safety and security as the highest priorities in air commerce is not leadership. General George Patton is credited with the quote, “Lead me, follow me, or get out of my way.” If general aviation is to make a renaissance, we need strong leadership in proactive safety and the encouragement to develop enticing new technologies. So it’s really simple. Lead us, follow us, or get out of our way.

Reprinted with permission from the December 2013 issue of avionics news magazine, a monthly publication of the aircraft electronics association.

FMI: www.aea.net