It’s time to face it: the world is running around saying the UN Agenda 21 (or 2030) mantras “Sustainable development” and “Green growth”. GA is just NOT “sustainable” or “green”. So we are part of the villains that “destroy the world”.
(Sorry if it sounds like a Monday morning rant….)
I think in the long run, GA will be huge. If I may prognosticate, I think in 100-200 years time there will be no more airlines and passenger planes. Eventually, we will all be flying in our own autonomous aircraft.
Part of the problem is the burden of getting the license.
Part of the problem is the cost.
Part of the problem is the regulations.
Part of the problem is the social stigma.
All of these things will go away with critical mass – if just enough people do it. Nobody today chastises anybody for buying an expensive car or calls a car owner an environmental and nature killer. Why not? Because there are just so many of them and even the haters rely on them daily. We just need to reach critical mass. And for that to happen, we need technological breakthroughs. Once autonomous flying is possible, then the burden of the license diminishes. You could do it in a weekend or as easily as getting a driver’s license. And once we figure out electric storage, we can have electric aircraft that cost a tenth of what they cost today.
It will happen.
Haha, that’s the very optimistic version, especially the “we” part ;-) You maybe …
Adam,
would make a nice movie, won’t it? But I actually think the opposite will happen. Individual transport will disappear and people will travel either by very fast ground transport (I heard they are working on some kind of that in California) or by rather large airliners.
Actually most of the future visions go in that direction, particularly since the green brigade have arrived. Of course they also want to slash mankind in half (in numbers).
AdamFrisch wrote:
Nobody today chastises anybody for buying an expensive car or calls a car owner an environmental and nature killer.
Really? Not where I live. They even wanted to introduce a law banning SUV’s and sports cars. In Europe, there is a different attitude towards that.
AdamFrisch wrote:
And once we figure out electric storage, we can have electric aircraft that cost a tenth of what they cost today.
How much of the airplane of today is expensive because of the fuel used? The more technology involved, the more bureaucrats will creep out of the woodwork and regulate it. To develop the Grumman AA5 took a year, today new airplanes take 5-10 years to get past the bureaucrats. That is why we still fly 1950ties designes and subtypes thereof. Which in contrast is why there is virtually no difference in efficiency or speed between 30 year old airframes and newer ones….
If GA shold become more affordable, we will need to massively slash development cost. And the large part of that is certification cost. We need to get individual transports down to a level where, on the cost basis, there won’t be any differece if you buy a today uncertified or certified airplane. As you can see, experimentals florish, not because people are adventurous but because they are cheaper. GA below 5700 kg needs a massive deregulation to the level of the 1950ties and we will get the planes cheaper. But that won’t happen, as it would both take away bureaucrat jobs and green pet peevs.
Michael_J wrote:
GA is just NOT “sustainable” or “green”.
In France, the ministry in charge of aviation is called “dévéloppement durable” (sustainable development). Every French pilot knows that because when you search for some regulation, you have to go to that website. So they have just defined aviation to be sustainable, voilà.
And if you take one of the more modern Rotax planes and compare how much fuel you need for getting from A to B (if it is not too short), then I think the plane beats the car. Also, you should not forget that for GA, you just need some grass strip on each end, whereas to go by car, you have to cover millions of square meters of nature in asphalt. When it comes to noise, I am always amazed at how noisy it is where people live next to a motorway or railway; and in the city, when only one moped drives in the street or someone drives their Maserati around the block (which does happen around where I live), it makes a lot more noise than a piston plane overhead, and a much more unpleasant noise.
We really should be more pro-active in defending this means of transportation against some of the unfounded attacks and not let the anti-everything brigade define what are “acceptable” types of emissions and what are “unacceptable” types. If you want, define absolute limits for noise or fuel consumption, but then enforce them for everyone equally.
Rwy20 wrote:
We really should be more pro-active in defending this means of transportation against some of the unfounded attacks and not let the anti-everything brigade define what are “acceptable” types of emissions and what are “unacceptable” types. If you want, define absolute limits for noise or fuel consumption, but then enforce them for everyone equally.
I agree. But guess where you get the most violent opposition to such arguments? That ‘s right. In Pilots’ forums. If we don’t believe it ourselfs, then how should we be convincing towards others?
Rwy20 wrote:
We really should be more pro-active in defending this means of transportation against some of the unfounded attacks and not let the anti-everything brigade define what are “acceptable” types of emissions and what are “unacceptable” types. If you want, define absolute limits for noise or fuel consumption, but then enforce them for everyone equally.
The fact that this issue exists at all is just silly. Firstly, I don’t think anything done by GA in Europe has much effect on the environment, or on competing access to resources for non-participants. Beyond that you’ve got all kinds of things going on which are similar: if a group of four guys spends the weekend riding four motorcycles for fun, they’re likely to burn 60 gallons of fuel, the same as if they jumped in a 182 and flew off somewhere (and back). I think the biggest resource issue is the waste of human energy discussing theoretical moral dilemmas that actually effect nobody, as opposed to doing something productive. I think that’s a real issue in Europe: too much debate about theoretical non-issues.
achimha wrote:
achimha 14-Nov-12 18:11 #23
As of 2011, there are some 547 airports served by the airlines and 19,784 total airports, of which 5172 are public use.
Germany has about 550 public airfields which is about 10% of what you quoted. The USA are about 27 times the size of Germany and about 3.75 times the population. So despite all complaints, we do have quite a bit of infrastructure still.
Yes 550 but those are as you said fields. Fields are really impractical and are just for the hobbyist. Most towns have an airport East of the Mississippi. A little less out west.
Silvaire wrote:
I think the biggest resource issue is the waste of human energy discussing theoretical moral dilemmas that actually effect nobody, as opposed to doing something productive. I think that’s a real issue in Europe: too much debate about theoretical non-issues.
So now you know where the EU ministers in Brussels get their wind. They are a product of Europe.
If GA shold become more affordable, we will need to massively slash development cost. And the large part of that is certification cost. We need to get individual transports down to a level where, on the cost basis, there won’t be any differece if you buy a today uncertified or certified airplane. As you can see, experimentals florish, not because people are adventurous but because they are cheaper. GA below 5700 kg needs a massive deregulation to the level of the 1950ties and we will get the planes cheaper. But that won’t happen, as it would both take away bureaucrat jobs and green pet peevs.
That’s on the table. There’s a proposal in congress for a FAA part 23 re-write. It won’t go through this time around, but it will go through eventually. They know they have a problem and that the onerous certification process has killed development. The proposal suggest a non-commercial subpart where any part 91 operator is free to put in experimental avionics etc. When it happens it will have a huge impact. And if it passes in FAA land, EASA will have no choice but to align their rules accordingly.
