Cheaper planes for fatter Americans

Thirty years ago, 85 percent of students and instructors could conduct training in a two-seat airplane. Today, 85 percent of students and instructors need to use a four-seat airframe. It would be inconceivable for four typical GA-interested American adults to take off within safe weight & balance limits for the typical 1950s or 1960s-designed airframe.

Cirrus responded to the changed circumstances by making the SR22, a four-seater with 1,000 lbs. more gross weight and twice the horsepower compared to a 1960s four-seater.

Piper has done something interesting. They’ve taken a seat out of their four-seater (1960 design), put in an experimental glass panel, and delivered a new IFR-capable three-seat airplane, including the fantastic Garmin GFC 500 autopilot, for $285,000 (down from more than $370,000; compare to a Cirrus SR20 at $455,000 before options). And it probably will be able to take off with three adult Americans circa 2020!

One issue: the airplane will be called the “Pilot 100”. Did the marketing staff at Piper recently come over from Dorco USA?

See this article from Plane&Pilot.

One unusual twist is using a 180-horsepower engine from Continental, now under Chinese ownership. Industry experts say that Lycoming makes a more reliable engine, especially the IO-360 Lycoming. Also that Lycoming support is far superior. Cirrus recently dropped Continental as a supplier for its lower-powered model, the SR20.

(Out of a handful of SR22s in our T hangars, the premature failure rate on the bigger Continental engines has been high. One failed catastrophically at 300 hours. Another failed at about 900 hours (supposed to last 2,200) and one month after its three-year warranty expired. Continental refused to do anything for the customer other than sell him a new engine at the standard price.)

Full post, including comments

Transgender solution to the Boeing 737 MAX problem

How to handle the public relations challenge of operating a new two-pilot two-jet-engine airliner with a safety record far worse than that of a 50-year-old single-pilot piston-engine plane such as the Cessna 402 (when used in airline service)? United Airlines seems to have found a way. From a friend on Facebook:

I ❤️ #United #LGBTQ #nonbinary

(Over a link to “United Becomes First U.S. Airline To Offer Nonbinary Gender Booking Options”)

What did the database programmers at United accomplish?

The U.S. airline will offer multiple gender options for customers booking flights, including M (male), F (female), U (undisclosed) and X (unspecified). United added that the title “Mx.” also will be available for travellers to select.

The gender option chosen by the passenger must correspond “with what is indicated on their passports or identification” in order to satisfy the Transportation Security Administration, United said. Anyone regardless of identification can choose the title “Mx.”

For whom can this work as a practical option, then?

More and more states have added gender options on identification. Oregon, California, Arkansas and Washington state currently offer a third gender option on birth certificates, while Washington, D.C., offers a third gender option on driver’s licenses. Most recently, the New York City Council announced it will offer “X” as a gender category for people who don’t identify as female or male.

What about for international travel? The U.S. Department of State offers a helpful page for those transitioning from one officially recognized “sex” to another. On the other hand, it seems that male/female are the only options. From “Victory! State Department Cannot Rely on its Binary-Only Gender Policy to Deny Passport to Nonbinary Intersex Citizen”:

The State Department denied Dana’s passport application because Dana could not accurately choose either male or female on the passport application form, and the form does not provide any other gender marker designation.

This is the second time Zzyym has won against the U.S. State Department for denying them a passport. In November, 2016, the same district court found the State Department had violated the federal Administrative Procedure Act and ordered the department to reconsider its binary-only gender policy.

The State Department doubled-down on its discriminatory male-or-female-only policy to deny Zzyym a passport, leading to today’s ruling.

So the nonbinary traveler making a domestic connection before an international flight would need a reservation with two genders: X for the domestic leg to correspond to the driver’s license and M or F for the international leg to correspond to the passport.

Backing up a bit… if the airline’s record must correspond to the gender stated on the passenger’s ID, did United have any choice but to task its database programmers with this project? Wouldn’t every airline have to invest in updating its systems to the modern world of gender-on-a-spectrum if the governments issuing IDs are changing their policies? So the PR folks at United are possibly even more brilliant for getting positive press for an expensive IT project that they were forced into doing.

Related:

Full post, including comments

Optional Angle-of-Attack Sensors on the Boeing 737 MAX

“Doomed Boeing Jets Lacked 2 Safety Features That Company Sold Only as Extras” (nytimes):

Boeing’s optional safety features, in part, could have helped the pilots detect any erroneous readings. One of the optional upgrades, the angle of attack indicator, displays the readings of the two [angle of attack] sensors. The other, called a disagree light, is activated if those sensors are at odds with one another.

Boeing declined to disclose the full menu of safety features it offers as options on the 737 Max, or how much they cost.

When it was rolled out, MCAS took readings from only one sensor on any given flight, leaving the system vulnerable to a single point of failure. One theory in the Lion Air crash is that MCAS was receiving faulty data from one of the sensors, prompting an unrecoverable nose dive.

[Watch the Aerodynamics lecture from our MIT FAA Ground School to learn more about angle of attack.]

As I noted in a previous posting, the Pilatus PC-12, a much cheaper and simpler airplane (1 engine and 9 passenger seats), doesn’t do any nose-down pushing unless two separate angle-of-attack sensors, and their respective computers, agree. Boeing’s ideas of

  • a system that works silently (so pilots don’t realize it is operating)
  • a system that works if just one sensor suggests a high angle of attack
  • a system that has the authority to drive the airplane into a full nose-down trim situation
  • a Band-Aid on the above in the form of a “disagree” warning light

are all terrible ones, as far as I can tell, and unconventional within the industry.

Does that mean we need much more stringent oversight by regulators? (as noted in this other previous posting, the “regulators” in the case of the above system were mostly Boeing employees) Maybe.

The prices of these optional items that would have made Boeing’s unsafe design a little less unsafe were too shocking for Boeing to admit or the NY Times to publish. But reasonably high-quality systems for homebuilt 2-seat and 4-seat airplanes are less than $2,000, including both the sensor and indicator. Examples:

So it is tough to know whether regulation should have been relaxed so that Boeing’s costs of putting reasonably modern avionics into the airplane were reduced or toughened so that the crazy bad ideas were squashed. (Or, as my previous posting suggests, shifted so that an independent private engineering service would do the steps that Boeing’s employees were doing while nominally wearing FAA hats.)

Full post, including comments

The aviator with songs stuck in his head

Participants at a local gathering of pilots were required to tell a joke. Here’s what I said…

I don’t want to tell a joke because so many people in this world are suffering with serious problems, like [FAA non-essential air traffic control employee, previous speaker] who talked about his personal struggles in Arizona and Europe during the paid 35-day shutdown.

I’m teaching computer programming this month at Harvard Medical School. One of the residents talked about a recent case that he observed.

A pilot came into the hospital and said “When I’m on final at 6B6 I can’t get the song ‘The green green grass of home’ out of my head. If I see a Grumman Cheetah on the tie-downs then it’s ‘What’s new, pussy cat?’. It’s distracting me from my approaches and preflights.

The attending physician said, “I’m pretty sure that you’re in the early stages of Tom Jones syndrome. Unfortunately, 72.3 percent of the time the disease is progressive and incurable.”

“72.3 percent?!? How have you seen enough cases to give a precise number like that? I’ve never heard of Tom Jones syndrome so I assume it is quite rare.”

The doctor thought for a moment. “Well, it’s not unusual.”

Full post, including comments

Could the Boeing 737 MAX be flown safely with a robot dome light third pilot?

Unfortunately, we now know that a two-pilot crew cannot safely handle the silent gradual pusher system of the Boeing 737 MAX.

“Pilot Who Hitched a Ride Saved Lion Air 737 Day Before Deadly Crash” (Bloomberg) says that a three-pilot crew was able to handle the design deficiencies in Boeing’s silent gradual pusher system. (The third pilot was in one of the comfy jump seats; I enjoyed a ride once in a B757 jump seat and it is remarkably luxurious.)

One of the ideas that I’ve been in love with for years is a robot copilot up in the dome light that can see everything the pilots see and, without anyone having to certify modifications to the legacy systems, help out with suggestions in the intercom. In the case of the 737 MAX, for example, the dome light copilot could notice when the runaway-trim-by-design system is operating and suggest “hit the trim interrupt switches!”

(Alternatively, of course, the Boeings could be returned to service with the requirement that they be flown by three pilots in the cockpit at all times, like a World War II bomber or Boeing 727. (In the not-so-good old days, a heavy airplane would have two pilots to manage the flight controls, a flight engineer (i.e., a third pilot) to manage the systems, and a navigator to watch the position over relative to the ground.))

Related:

Full post, including comments

Fly upside down in a helicopter

“Chuck Aaron opens helicopter aerobatics flight school” (Vertical) is interesting news! The school is just NE of Charlotte, North Carolina. Perfect spring time activity!

(Separately, East Coast Aero Club is currently looking to hire a helicopter instructor. We don’t do aerobatics in the Robinson R44s, however. Email me if interested in the job.)

Related:

Full post, including comments

Certification process for the 737 MAX silent gradual pusher system

A reader was kind enough to send me “Flawed analysis, failed oversight: How Boeing and FAA certified the suspect 737 MAX flight control system” (Seattle Times), which gives some more detail on how the world’s first “silent gradual pusher” system was unleashed on airline passengers and crew. (See https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2018/11/11/boeing-737-crash-is-first-mass-killing-by-software/ for my description of how the conventional stick pusher works; it requires two sensors to agree before it will activate and the pushing is readily apparent to the pilots; disabling the pusher in a simple turboprop aircraft is as simple as pushing a button on the yoke).

The Seattle Times article describes the delegation process by which an employee of Boeing can actually do a lot of the work that members of the public imagine FAA employees would be doing. Boeing is an “Organization Designation Authorization” holder (“ODA”). A Boeing employee puts on an FAA hat periodically and checks work done by fellow Boeing employees.

Putting government workers in the critical path for engineering improvements slows things down so much that safety ends up being compromised. And having people pay designated or delegated authorities cuts the cost to taxpayers. But I wonder if it is time to say that certification scrutiny should be done by an independent private engineering team, not by engineers employed by the manufacturer.

Full post, including comments

Antarctic aviation in the 1930s

If you love Antarctica stories and airplanes, Antarctica’s Lost Aviator: The Epic Adventure to Explore the Last Frontier on Earth is the book for you. Lincoln Ellsworth, whom the author says would be a multi-billionaire if his fortune at the time were adjusted to today’s mini-dollars, spent years organizing a flight across the continent and finally succeeded in 1935. He decided to become a polar explorer at age 44.

How had things gone for the world’s greatest polar explorer?

Roald Amundsen had devoted his life to polar exploration, and by 1924 it had left him bankrupt and bitter.

In truth, Amundsen’s biggest mistake was that he had won. A small team of hardy and hardened men from Norway, with experience and careful planning, had upstaged the ambitions of the proud and mighty British Empire and the Empire did not like it. Burdened by debt, made weightier by accusations of cheating, Amundsen again sought refuge on the ice, but his plans were interrupted by World War I. After the war, he made an attempt to sail the Northeast Passage, before deciding his future was in the sky. He gained a pilot’s license and resolved to fly to the North Pole and across the Arctic Ocean. He took an obsolete plane to Wainwright, Canada, but crashed it landing on rough ground. Amundsen reasoned that what he really needed was a plane that could take off and land on water or ice: a flying boat. The best available at the time were the Italian-built Dornier Wal flying boats. But how to pay for them? Amundsen was forced to turn to the only way he knew to raise money: touring and lecturing. The money was in America, so that’s where he went. Thus, in October 1924, Roald Amundsen was holed up in New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel, refusing to accept visitors lest they be creditors and “nearer to black despair than ever before,” on a tour that, “was practically a financial failure”:

Amundsen, Ellsworth, and some well-qualified pilots and mechanics of the day did head up towards the North Pole in two German-designed Italian-built Dornier Wal seaplanes (two 350 hp engines). Mechanical issues prevent them from reaching the Pole, however. They have better luck in an airship, making it from Svalbard to Alaska via the North Pole in 1926 (story).

What were prices like in the early 1930s?

Bernt Balchen agreed to be the pilot [of a trans-Antarctic flight in a Northrop Gamma] if he was paid $800 a month plus his expenses, for the length of the expedition. For a successful flight across Antarctica he would receive a $14,700 bonus. It was a lucrative contract at a time when professionals, such as doctors, were earning $60 per week and production workers were lucky to manage $17.

Women today are generally prevented from taking flying lessons. A T-shirt from a flight school in Bentonville, Arkansas

Back in the 1930s, however, men were not sufficiently organized to exclude women from aviation:

While at Mittelholzer’s airfield, the fifty-two-year-old Ellsworth met Mary Louise Ulmer, a fellow American, twenty-five years his junior, who was taking flying lessons. Ulmer was the daughter of an industrialist, Jacob Ulmer (who had died in 1928) and Eldora, who was fulfilling her duty as the wealthy, idle socialite mother of a plain, awkward, and painfully shy daughter. Eldora was dragging her child around Europe in the hope of finding a suitable husband. When Ellsworth and Mary Louise met at Mittelholzer’s airfield, Eldora instantly knew she had hit the jackpot. Ellsworth was older, equally shy, and, she may have suspected from his bachelor status, gay. But he had two qualities that made him an ideal son-in-law: he was incredibly wealthy and he was well practiced in doing what he was told. … ten days after they met, Ellsworth proposed marriage to Mary Louise.

Having succeeded in her safari to the continent to hunt down a husband for her daughter, Eldora’s next task was to return to America to display the trophy. Any fleeting attention Ellsworth might have given to his polar expedition was redirected to surviving the less forgiving environment of a society wedding.

By 1930, Antarctica was still 90 percent unknown. Maybe this is because explorers were usually too plastered to make maps?

Ellsworth also sent on board forty bottles of whisky for his personal consumption, in addition to the whisky and beer taken on board for the crew.

The expedition leader had some reasons to drink:

[Hubert] Wilkins tried to make sense of his life and plan what he should do next. He had no money and was living on the small salary that Ellsworth was paying him to take care of the Wyatt Earp. He felt that his debt—moral or financial—had been repaid. He had organized the expedition and got everything successfully to the Ross Ice Shelf, until circumstances beyond his control had brought the whole affair to a premature end. He was alone and lonely; famous for a failed submarine expedition to the North Pole, while living in hotels at the bottom of the world, touring country towns and showing his films for a little extra cash. … On the personal front, Wilkins had not seen his wife in two years and was conscious that she was dating other men. He had married Suzanne Bennett, an Australian-born chorus girl working in New York, shortly after he was knighted. It was a whirlwind romance, consummated at a heady time in Wilkins’s life. It was soon apparent to Wilkins that Suzanne’s main motivation in attaching herself to the famous explorer was to gain the title Lady Wilkins, then put it to use to elevate her career from chorus girl to movie star. (A strategy that was spectacularly unsuccessful.) Wilkins constantly wrote Suzanne long letters expressing his love, but she rarely replied, and when she did it was usually only to taunt him about his lack of success, his age, or the fact he was going bald.

(The wife later writes to him saying that she is pregnant.) He dispenses life advice to the crew: “Remember, Magnus, you will never gain anything without personal wealth, or government backing.”

The Southern ocean was not any better behaved back then

The Wyatt Earp had a rough trip south. In heavy weather it would roll fifty degrees to each side. From being heeled over to port, rolling though one hundred degrees to starboard, then back to port, took only four and a half seconds. Anything not secured would be catapulted about the cabins with dangerous velocity.

The first trip was going great until the ice shelf from which they had planned to launch the airplane split apart, in cartoon-like fashion, right underneath the airplane. The plane dangles into the crack, supported by the wings on both sides. The season of 1933-34 wasted.

The season of 1934-35 is ruined by a mechanic’s error in trying to start the engine without first draining the preserving oil, then by some bad weather.

The author explains why a lot of folks have had trouble in one particular part of this continent:

Today we know that on each side of Antarctica there is a huge bight. On the side facing the Pacific Ocean it is the Ross Sea, while facing the Atlantic Ocean it is the Weddell Sea. Currents, which are driven forcibly from the oceans to the north, flow into these great bights to scoop up millions of tons of ice that have descended from the Antarctic Plateau and, in a swirling clockwise motion, sweep it out to sea. In the Ross Sea where, at the western extremity Victoria Land does not extend north, the piled pack ice easily reaches open water. At the western end of the Weddell Sea, however, the Antarctic Peninsula extends north. Here the ice cannot escape so freely. Trapped, it becomes deadly as it is caught, crushed, jumbled, and tumbled over itself. And small rocky islands jut from the water and conspire with the ice to crush any ship foolish enough to venture into the area. The northwest corner of the Weddell Sea is the most dangerous coastal area in the Antarctic. In February 1902, Swedish explorer Otto Nordenskjöld and a small party were landed on Snow Hill Island at the edge of the Weddell Sea. Returning in December, their relief ship found it impossible to reach them and had to move away from shore. Returning again in February 1903, the ship was caught and smashed by the ice, marooning the relief party on nearby Paulet Island. Nordenskjöld’s group, which had already built a hut, spent a second winter in Antarctica, while the relief group survived in a small stone shelter, before all the men were eventually rescued. Nordenskjöld claimed the area had “a desolation and wildness, which perhaps no other place on earth could show.” Another person to risk entering the Weddell Sea was Sir Ernest Shackleton, who ignored the advice of the whalers and based his decision on his two trips to the more benign Ross Sea. When he attempted to unload the team that planned to walk across Antarctica, his ship Endurance was famously caught and crushed. In the twenty years since the Endurance, no one had tried to navigate the Weddell Sea. In fact, in more than thirty years, no one had returned to visit Nordenskjöld’s hut. But Wilkins’s previous experience told him there was no other possibility of finding a flat runway. Venturing into the infamous Weddell Sea was their only hope.

Supposedly we are living in a woker-than-ever age of tolerance. People in the old days were morally defective by comparison. Yet when Sir Wilkins’s wife sends him a letter repeating gossip regarding Ellsworth being gay, he replies “I am not the least bit concerned as to what people say. He may be a sissy for all I know, but I do know that I gave my word that I would do the job of putting him in a position for doing the flight he has made up his mind to do and that is that. One does not argue or ask to get out of a contract by word of honor.” The unconventional sexual choices purportedly made by Ellsworth did not keep him from being awarded the Congressional Gold Medal twice, one of only four people to have achieved this. Nor did his sexual orientation prevent a lot of stuff on the map from being named “Ellsworth” (plus a hall at the American Museum of Natural History).

For the 1935-36 season, the pilot is Herbert Hollick-Kenyon, born in England 38 years previously and with 6,000 flying hours behind him.

During the months before the flight, the author describes what is surely Ellsworth’s most remarkable achieve: “he went tiger hunting in the jungles of Brazil.”

The challenge and the proposed solution:

Ellsworth and Hollick-Kenyon had to fly 2,200 miles, more than half of which was over an unexplored area of the Earth’s surface. That unexplored area, lying roughly in the middle of their flight, could be flat ice shelf, towering mountains ranges, or a series of islands. They would be taking off from a point north of the Antarctic Circle (63°5′ South, 55°9′ West), flying to within six hundred miles of the South Pole, and through more than one hundred degrees of longitude (over a quarter of the way around the globe) to an ice shelf the size of France, on which they needed to locate a buried base, only indicated by radio aerials protruding from the snow.

Balchen was proficient at dead reckoning navigation. So was Wilkins. Importantly, Balchen and Wilkins knew that a key to dead reckoning was knowing the plane’s flying speed, and the only way to accurately measure that was to time a flight from point A to point B. Balchen had flown the Polar Star and claimed its top speed was 220 mph and that it cruised at 150 mph. But Balchen had made that test flight in

Full post, including comments

Conventional to have a 200-hour copilot on a Boeing?

Friends have been asking about the recent (second) Boeing 737 MAX crash (Wikipedia). I wrote some stuff about the first crash, e.g., in

(Summary: A single sensor going bad can cause a “runaway trim” situation from the pilot’s point of view. In theory, pilots can handle runaway trim. In practice, quite a few crashes have resulted from runaway trim.)

The latest crash has friends asking a new question: Was it normal to have a low-time pilot in the right seat? (see “Ethiopian Airlines said the pilot of Flight 302 had 8,000 hours of flying time but the co-pilot had just 200.” (nytimes))

I wrote about this question back in 2009 in “Foreign Airline Safety versus U.S. Major Airlines”:

Buttonhole any pilot in a U.S. commercial airport and you’ll learn that the major airlines hire only those pilots who have previously been captains of regional airliners or military planes. And the regional airlines, which supply most of the nation’s major airline pilots, mostly hire from among those who have been flight instructors for 750-1500 hours.

What’s changed since 2009? Following a regional turboprop crash in Buffalo, in which both pilots had more than 1,500 hours, Congress decided that they would prevent future crashes by requiring that all airline pilots have at least 1,500 hours (the possibility of the $30 million plane having 1/100th of the intelligence of a consumer drone was not considered).

Another change is that Corporate America’s passion for “diversity” enables members of official victim groups, e.g., pilots identifying as “women”, to be hired by a major airline without first flying for a regional (see https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2018/05/12/the-purported-airline-pilot-shortage/).

Back to my 2009 article:

A foreign major airline, by contrast, does not have a large pool of regional airline pilots, ex-military folks, and flight instructors from which to draw. Most foreign countries do not have an infrastructure of airports, flight schools, and private pilots. There would be no work for a flight instructor in such a country. Unless the country is very large, there won’t be any regional airlines. Due to the shortage of qualified nationals, the foreign airline may screen young people and send the most promising to flight schools in the U.S. until they are trained to the minimum legal standards. For example, Japan Airlines runs a training center in Napa, California. Lufthansa trains its pilots in Arizona. A 23-year-old who can barely speak English and barely knows how to fly can go directly to the right seat of an Airbus.

So the crew experience situation on the accident aircraft was unusual by U.S. standards, but not by the standards of European or Asian airlines.

Friends have been asking whether they should fly the B737 MAX. With about 350 delivered so far and all during the last two years, the plane is developing a worse safety record (per year, if not per flight hour) than the four/five-seat Cirrus SR22. My advice: take the Airbus, if one is available. The Airbus fly-by-wire computer-in-the-middle philosophy is to protect the aircraft and passengers from pilots who aren’t at their best, for whatever reason. (Example: Captain Sully had the yoke full back during his famous approach into the Hudson River; a B737 would have stalled and spun given that control input, but the Airbus software kept everyone safe.)

Full post, including comments

Private airplanes built in 2018

General Aviation Manufacturer’s Association 2018 Annual Report is available. If you love numbers and love flying, this is a fascinating document.

Table 1.1 shows total piston deliveries were 1,139, less than half the recent peak of 2,755 (2006). Turboprops are actually up compared to 2007 (465 to 601). Bizjets are off from 1,317 (2008) to 703, but higher prices mean that $22 billion in total revenue is down only to about $18 billion (1.2).

The percentage of piston-powered airplanes going to Asia has doubled since 2007 while bizjet deliveries are up even more (1.3).

Gulfstream is doing quite well, with 121 jets shipped compared to a peak of 156 in 2007. Even the G280, which cannot legally be landed in most Arab countries, is pretty successful (29 delivered). Cessna, on the other hand, is down to 188 from a peak of 466 (2008). So it sort of looks like the rich are getting richer until you look at Boeing and Airbus monster bizjet sales. There were a total of only 7 delivered in 2018 compared to 27 in 2010. (Table 1.4a)

Standout successful jets are the Cirrus SF50 (63 delivered), Bombardier Challenger 350 (60 delivered), the Embraer Phenom 300 (53 delivered), and the Pilatus PC-24 (brand new, but 18 delivered). Honda delivered 37 of its relatively new jet, compared to 43 the previous year.

Pilatus delivered 80 PC-12 turboprops, down from a peak of 100 in 2009. Piper achieved an all-time record of 56 for its six-year PA-46. Textron sold 94 King Airs (off a peak of 172 in 2008) and 92 Caravans (off a peak of 107 in 2012). The TBM is enjoying record near-record sales of 50 per year.

Down in the piston ghetto… Cirrus delivered 380 planes, of which the volume leader is the SR22T (maybe this is the best version, since the prop is governed to a maximum of 2500 RPM, which should be quieter than the 2700 RPM of the SR20 and SR22). This is down from 710 planes sold in the glorious year of 2007. Cessna and Piper delivered 193 and
173 , respectively. Italy’s TECNAM actually made more planes than Piper: 180. Austrian/Canadian/Chinese Diamond is down at 134, off a peak of 471 in 2007. ICON managed to deliver 44 planes. That’s a total of 59 delivered since inception.

Airbus delivered 323 helicopters. Bell was at 245, including an astonishing 116 of the new 505. Robinson was at 316, down from a peak of 893 in 2008. It looks as though the Guimbal Cabri (priced like a four-seater; sized like a two-seater) is failing. Sales are down to 25 from a peak of 50 in 2016. Robinson managed to out-sell this purpose-built two-seat trainer with 33 R22s. Note that these numbers include military helicopter sales.

Table 1.5 is depressing. The U.S. made at least 5,000 general aviation airplanes from 1956 through 1981. During the Jimmy Carter malaise year of 1978, the factories made 17,811 planes, 17,032 of which were piston-powered. In 2018 it was 1,746, of which 829 were piston-driven. The revenue numbers (Table 1.6) show a flatter picture, even for the piston world. Cirrus’s $1 million SR22 prices are apparently helping. We’re exporting about 42 percent of our airplanes, measured in dollars.

Tables 2.2 and 2.3 show that Americans flew 140,000 aircraft approximately 7.8 million hours for personal/recreational reasons. Flight instruction occupied 16,000 aircraft for 5 million hours.

Table 2.5 shows the increasingly static society that Tyler Cowen wrote about. Despite population growth from 1980 to 2017 of 226 to 326 million, total hours flown in general aviation fell from 41,000 to 25,000.

Table 2.6 shows how much sitting on the ground planes do. The average piston-powered airplane flies only 95 hours per year, down from 130 in 2000. The average bizjet flies only 286 hours. Helicopters fly an average of 239 (piston) and 351 (turbine) hours per year. Homebuilders tinker with their planes rather than fly them (only 46 hours per year).

Table 2.9 shows that getting environmentalists to Davos in their Gulfstreams uses a lot of dinosaur blood. Piston fuel consumption is down from 333 million gallons in 2000 to 210 million in 2017. Jet fuel, on the other hand, has gone from 972 million gallons up to 1535 million.

The average age of a single-engine piston airplane is 46 years and 44 for a piston multi. Average jets are 16 years old. (2.11)

General aviation is making less use of Air Traffic Control. Operations at towered airports fell from 38.4 million in 1992 to 27.7 million in 2017.

The U.S. pilot numbers have fallen from 702,659 (5.77 percent women) in 1990 to 633,318 (7.34 percent women; 42,127 of whom may live outside of the U.S.) in 2018. U.S. population, meanwhile, grew from 250 million to 330 million. Holding a pilot certificate is becoming more unusual. (6.1)

The average age of all pilots is not rising as fast as one might expect from hanging around a GA airport. It was 41.9 in 1994 and is 44.9 today (essentially steady since 2012).

The busiest GA airports: KDVT (Deer Valley, AZ), KAPA (Denver), KHWO (Florida), KTMB (Tamiami, Florida), KGFK (University of North Dakota), KVNY (Van Nuys, California). The obvious suspects such as Teterboro are not on the list (7.3).

Even as the U.S. adds population, we are losing public airports, down slightly from 5,288 (2004) to 5,119 (2016).

Full post, including comments