Rhetorical Question - Amateur-built/Experimental.......Cars?

[keepup]

Now we're getting somewhere....

Thought I'd inject some humor into this.

If it is a rhetorical question, why are we answering?

See, that's the kinda "outta the box thinking" I'm looking for! Laughter is always the best medicine!

What makes you think that Cessna, for example, isn't utilizing most or all of these standard engineering / business concepts / tools? Want to bet that Boeing isn't using all of them, plus many you haven't heard of?

It really does boil down to economics of scale. There is more money in parts for a 27" tube TV than in a Garmin SL30. Look at the respective prices. Toyota makes more engines in a year than Lycoming has made in it's entire history. Look at the respective prices.

Serious factory automation requires serious capitol investment. That investment will not be made without a strong expectation of return.

If you want cheaper, more advanced GA aircraft, just convince 100,000 of your buddies to buy one this year, and the next, and the next. I can guaranty you the dramatic improvements you are looking for.

Ted, thank you for holding me accountable to my argument and forcing me to clarify my position. You're right. It's not like there is a complete void for the list of things I mention. I guess what I'm really asking is why is there such a lack of utilization of the tools available? Many of these methods are being used but oh so sparingly. Why? Why, when other industries have not been able to survive without them for decades now? Industries where goods are produced with high performance, high quality, and low cost?

Ok, I've put it off long enough, and it needs to be addressed. This issue of volume and economies of scale. To begin with, I do not have the answers but let's examine it, this issue of the chicken and the egg.

Selling in high volume requires high demand. Demand requires safety and reliability. Proven safety and relability requires high volume (I think). The reason I say I think is that there are some pretty powerful statistics that go into Reliability Engineering of which I am unfamiliar. But I'm sure that the confidence interval suffers with lower and lower volumes. I would really like to hear some folks with extensive Reliability Engineering experience chime in here. Perhaps though we can take a lesson from other industries. Overcoming the chicken and the egg is not possible overnight and from what I can tell is an iterative process. It appears to me to be a process of the following:

Try something
gather data
turn the data into information
learn from the information
develop the next solution
take a risk in the market
gather data, data into information
learn from low market volume
develop the next solution
take a bigger risk in the market with higher volumes
repeat

Right now, this is the only solution to the chicken and egg I can come up with. One thing appears certain to me, however. If you've got loads of available data that you're doing nothing with, how can you possibly learn? It is my supposition that this is what we are seeing in the aviation industry today.

 

[keepup]

another point I forgot to mention. I think we can all agree that, with an increase in quality, there is an associated increase in cost, right? Well, that's true but I also believe it to be only half the story. Because if you extend that curve you will find that the trend reverses and where you have an increase in quality you actually have a decrease in cost. If scrap, rework, customer returns, regulatory fines, litigation, and many others are out of control you can actually decrease your cost by increasing quality. There is a break even point somewhere.

So my question is this: What regime is your company in? Forget about volume for a minute. In some cases, it might just be the case that doing it right will increase your profitability. Having a high degree of confidence in the accuracy of your Cost of Quality/Cost of Poor Quality index (being careful to account for those many hidden costs) will let you know on which side of that break even point you are. Kinda hard to do that without all the data you need.

 

[Jconard]

1. do you think that people avoid flying becuase they are afraid of the airplanes? The crash rate for aircraft in GA overall is about the same as for motorcycles, and mechanical failures leading to crashes account for a very small portion. Your belief that quantum leaps in quality aside, there seems to be no mechanism that connects such deficiency to current demand...at least in crashes.

2. Cost is a function of volume as is using the methods you describe as old or fialing to use the methods you describe as modern. If I can pay a guy 60K per year to hammer out ribs with a simple press brake and block, and he can deliver ever rib I need, what kind of scrap rate would it take to justify the kind of money you are talking about for the modern machinery. In the end, you are cutting, and bending and fastening aluminum....not terribly tricky.

3. Cost is a function of liability. About two thirds of the cost as I understand it. So, if Cessna could build a G1000 182 for a cost of $10.00, the cost of the aircraft would still be $250,090.00

4. The only way to reduce per unit liability cost is to keep overall liability static while growing the units. However, the flaw in this is that cars crash and people die all the time, without lawsuits, and almost always without blaming the car. Virtually every plane crash, on the other hand does result in litigation against the manufacturer. Jurors, judges and lawmakers can intuitivly accept that people die in cars and most often it has nothing to do with the car. On the other hand juries, judges and lawmakers intuitively believe that when an airplane crashes, there was something wrong with the airplane. This makes it very difficult to to shrink the per unit liability cost because the accident rate will stay relatively the same and the percent of accidents litigated will be the same so that liability cost will not get proportionately smaller if the fleet grows.

5. It is hard to just "try something" and gather data in a certified aircraft..impossible actually without risking huge sums of money, the time lag for each try and manufacture cycle would be measured in decades or significant portions of a decade.

6. If you want general aviation to be cheaper get your politician to allow consumers to purchase subject to liability waivers and get the law changed to enforce them. If Cessna could get their customers to sign away all but "gross negligence" upon purchase, I bet you could buy a new 172 for under $100,000

 

[Sam Buchanan]

<snip> Overcoming the chicken and the egg is not possible overnight and from what I can tell is an iterative process. It appears to me to be a process of the following:

Try something
gather data
turn the data into information
learn from the information
develop the next solution
take a risk in the market
gather data, data into information
learn from low market volume
develop the next solution
take a bigger risk in the market with higher volumes
repeat

If I understand the market correctly, this is precisely what Cirrus has accomplished and what Eclipse may be in the process of achieving.

Dittos for the experimental avionics community.

But the aviation world is littered with companies that had the correct approach but could not overcome the almost impossible hurdle of finding the huge financing necessary for their new aircraft. The regulatory environment in which aviation resides is probably second only to the nuclear power industry. Perhaps that is why it is difficult to translate business principles from other industries to the business of building airframes.

 

[Ted Johns]

Selling in high volume requires high demand. Demand requires safety and reliability.

Demand requires something a little more obvious. Justifiable need. Back in the 60's, people were buying cars as fast as they could be built, driving them 70mph, on what today would be thought of as ridiculously unsafe handling / braking platforms.

Darn few people really need a GA aircraft. It's a poor choice for travel less than 60 miles, cars are more economic. This cuts out most people right away. It's a poor choice for travel greater than roughly 600 miles, commercial air travel is more economic.

Personal aircraft really only make economic sense for people that need to make multiple trips greater than 100 - 200 miles in a week, and are willing to get an IFR ticket, and are willing to accept the risks of single pilot IFR...

These constraints relegate the majority of GA aircraft to "hobby" or "sport" status. And a darn fine sport, in my opinion. But not everyone shares this opinion...

It's a lot like other motor sports. It's a niche market, and the cool go fast goodies are manufactured in low volume. You aren't going to get a NASCAR equivalent ride for econo-box prices.

 

[keepup]

Our disagreement is that you do not know of what you speak, and so your criticism is simply an expression of your frustration.

Along the lines of more humor, you all will be glad to know that on the good advice of my buddy Jconard, I have downloaded the audiobook "How to Win Friends and Influence People", by Dale Carnegie.

 

[DaX]

Georgia will no longer title kit or amateur built vehicles. This is very unfortunate in my opinion.

 

[videobobk]

Most interesting thread on all counts, and so many good points. But one thought seems to be missed; the good ole Law of Unintended Consequences. While less directed at the manufacturing aspect, a number of attempts have been made to simplify the actual flying in order to make the product "safer." An early example was the Ercoupe. Many people soloed the Ercoupe in as little as two hours because it was so easy to fly and land. At least until you ran into some unusual conditions, anyway. The actual safety record for the Ercoupe was rather poor, and although it was a quite efficient plane for it's day, it didn't appeal to enough people to be successful. Mooney tried the one-control engine with Porsche power. It got pretty good reviews and I think they may have actually sold one, but that is just a rumor. LOTS of R&D money down the drain.

IMHO, experimental aviation is the driving force today. We are the testbed for ideas. We are not stuck in the mire of 1950's regulation nor hindered by the drag of runaway litigation. (I know, generalities in every case.) We are blessed with the spirit of innovation and cooperation and spurred on by open discussion. While I don't like the overall direction of general aviation today, I feel our best bet is to continue to innovate and to build. If we can keep regulation and litigation at bay, our segment will continue to thrive. And in the end, so will GA. IMHO, anyway. Support those who support these ends and we will be doing the best we can do.

Bob Kelly

 

[RVbySDI]

Most interesting thread on all counts, and so many good points. . .

. . .If we can keep regulation and litigation at bay, our segment will continue to thrive. And in the end, so will GA. IMHO, anyway. Support those who support these ends and we will be doing the best we can do.

Bob Kelly

Absolutely agree with Bob here!

The answers are not going to come from acceptance of technical breakthroughs, changes in manufacturing practices, economies of scale or any other normal road block to production efforts. No, to answer all of these "rhetorical" questions all one has to do is come up with a solution for all of these ever increasing restrictive regulations from government and for changing the litigious beliefs that have driven every law suit associated with every airplane crash that has occurred for the past 50 years.

 

[keepup]

Absolutely agree with Bob here!

The answers are not going to come from acceptance of technical breakthroughs, changes in manufacturing practices, economies of scale or any other normal road block to production efforts. No, to answer all of these "rhetorical" questions all one has to do is come up with a solution for all of these ever increasing restrictive regulations from government and for changing the litigious beliefs that have driven every law suit associated with every airplane crash that has occurred for the past 50 years.

I can't agree with you more. The litigious society in which we live literally makes me physically ill. IMHO it, and the associated lack of personal responsibility, are one of the many signs that we are a dying civilization. However, in theory, my "manufacturing practices" as you put it, would result in higher quality, safety, and reliability. Would these not have a positive impact on the regulatory restrictions and lawsuits? In theory they would but like you I fear the biggest hurdle is overcoming the PERCEPTIONS of fear of the ignorant lawmakers and the public.

 

[RVbySDI]

I can't agree with you more. The litigious society in which we live literally makes me physically ill. IMHO it, and the associated lack of personal responsibility, are one of the many signs that we are a dying civilization. However, in theory, my "manufacturing practices" as you put it, would result in higher quality, safety, and reliability. Would these not have a positive impact on the regulatory restrictions and lawsuits? In theory they would but like you I fear the biggest hurdle is overcoming the PERCEPTIONS of fear of the ignorant lawmakers and the public.

Now you have traveled full circle to come face to face with the reason all of us are building RV's and all of the other EXPERIMENTAL types of airplanes.

"We few, we proud, we Band of Brothers" (My apologies to Stephen Ambrose for using a reference to Easy Company here but I do see us as a Band of Brothers.) are productively plugging along at building the very airplanes you are suggesting the GA industry should be building and selling.

Again, the issue with Cessna, Cirrus, Piper et. al. is not manufacturing 6 sigma measurement tools or any of that manufacturing hocus pocus. It is the fact that they are bogged down relentlessly by strict regulations and requirements on what, when, where, how they can build anything. Experimental aircraft are not!

 

[Sam Buchanan]

<snip> ....in theory, my "manufacturing practices" as you put it, would result in higher quality, safety, and reliability. Would these not have a positive impact on the regulatory restrictions and lawsuits? In theory they would but like you I fear the biggest hurdle is overcoming the PERCEPTIONS of fear of the ignorant lawmakers and the public.

So....what was the point of the "rhetorical question"?

John, welcome to the very real and often maddening world of aviation. Continue in your flight training and education and soon your questions will not be rhetorical, but rather how to manage the flare-to-landing properly and how to deal with the challenges of flight planning.

And don't be surprised if you decide to leave the world of certificated aviation and join us in the exciting (and relatively unrestrained) experimental community.

 

[G-force]

My 2 cents on the "one control and a warning light" comments. The point I would like to make is the archaic nature of aircraft that has been pointed out. I can drive a brand new $12k car in temps from -20 to 120 deg. F and elevations from sea level to 10k feet and not do a thing and it will run perfectly. No knobs, levers or buttons to manipulate. I don't need to know the EGT or CHT or oil temp, the computer will set the timing and fuel flow to keep them within range. Get a bad tank of gas, the knock sensor will just retard the timing untill its safe. None of this is true with my 1915 Model T, I have to manipulate the spark advance and mixture while driving, should I have to on a new $250k Cessna as well?

 

[Ted Johns]

Absolutely agree with Bob here!

The answers are not going to come from acceptance of technical breakthroughs, changes in manufacturing practices, economies of scale or any other normal road block to production efforts. No, to answer all of these "rhetorical" questions all one has to do is come up with a solution for all of these ever increasing restrictive regulations from government and for changing the litigious beliefs that have driven every law suit associated with every airplane crash that has occurred for the past 50 years.

It's great fun to rail against the lawyers and all that jazz, but I note that the auto manufacturers survived and prospered while Nader and many others did their best (worst?). A few dozen multi-million dollar lawsuits would barely scratch the hide of an automaker. They would be much more concerned about the bad press than the actual award moneys.

Litigation is not much of a factor in the price of an o-360X. Litigation is not a factor in the cost of a Garmin SL30. Litigation is not a factor in the cost of the latest deck series of EFIS from AFS. Economy of scale is.

 

[Jconard]

Litigation is not much of a factor in the price of an o-360X. Litigation is not a factor in the cost of a Garmin SL30. Litigation is not a factor in the cost of the latest deck series of EFIS from AFS. Economy of scale is.

Really? Why do you say that. The theory of tort law (enterprise liability) is that a number of injuries will result from a statistically unavoidable failure rate. The cost of those injuries are assumed by the court system to be spread across all the consumers. The boxes made today have the cost of future litigation built in.

If an O-360-X fails or is installed in an aircraft which crashes, I will guarantee that every viable party involved with its construction will be named in the lawsuit.

How on earth could you conclude that litigation cost is not a factor in selling a certified IFR navigator like the SL-30 or that selling one would not create liability exposure for the seller?

Same with AFS...a full EFIS is a guaranteed lawsuit in a crash.

 

[Ted Johns]

Litigation is not much of a factor in the price of an o-360X. Litigation is not a factor in the cost of a Garmin SL30. Litigation is not a factor in the cost of the latest deck series of EFIS from AFS. Economy of scale is.

Really? Why do you say that. The theory of tort law (enterprise liability) is that a number of injuries will result from a statistically unavoidable failure rate. The cost of those injuries are assumed by the court system to be spread across all the consumers. The boxes made today have the cost of future litigation built in.

If an O-360-X fails or is installed in an aircraft which crashes, I will guarantee that every viable party involved with its construction will be named in the lawsuit.

How on earth could you conclude that litigation cost is not a factor in selling a certified IFR navigator like the SL-30 or that selling one would not create liability exposure for the seller?

Same with AFS...a full EFIS is a guaranteed lawsuit in a crash.

John, I am under the impression that there is yet to be a successful liability lawsuit in the experimental aircraft marketplace. Do you have information otherwise? I doubt that the mom and pop companies that make up much of experimental aviation are budgeting for a legal team and litigation. I suspect they are assuming that incorporation will shield them from personal liability, and to heck with the company.

Yeah, I'm sure that Garmin has a legal Dept. to fund, although the chance of a SL30 being proven to be the cause of a fatal crash seems slim. I would be surprised if litigation expense is a significant portion of their bottom line.

Regardless, economies of scale apply to legal departments as well.

 

[Mike S]

Litigation is not much of a factor in the price of an o-360X. Litigation is not a factor in the cost of a Garmin SL30. Litigation is not a factor in the cost of the latest deck series of EFIS from AFS.

In a perfect world, maybe.

 

[Mike S]

John, I am under the impression that there is yet to be a successful liability lawsuit in the experimental aircraft marketplace.

Quickie Aircraft Corp.

 

[Ted Johns]

Quickie Aircraft Corp.

Mullan v. Quickie Aircraft Corp. was essentially reversed by the tenth circuit Court of Appeals, Colorado. Not much else to go on that I could find.

I do agree that litigation is a potential cost of doing business, anywhere, anytime. Still, I think the reason a Cessna Skycatcher is 120K, as opposed to say 40K, is economies of scale, not litigation. Even if we assume that the legal dept. of Cessna is a big item in their bottom line, selling 100,000 Skycatchers a year would make it make it a smaller item.

 

[keepup]

My 2 cents on the "one control and a warning light" comments. The point I would like to make is the archaic nature of aircraft that has been pointed out. I can drive a brand new $12k car in temps from -20 to 120 deg. F and elevations from sea level to 10k feet and not do a thing and it will run perfectly. No knobs, levers or buttons to manipulate. I don't need to know the EGT or CHT or oil temp, the computer will set the timing and fuel flow to keep them within range. Get a bad tank of gas, the knock sensor will just retard the timing untill its safe. None of this is true with my 1915 Model T, I have to manipulate the spark advance and mixture while driving, should I have to on a new $250k Cessna as well?

And you Mike, have just proven my very point. I could not have said it any better. And though I believe liability, regulation, and economies of scale are contributing factors I also believe that the manufacturers are sitting on a gold mine they, for some reason, choose not to harvest. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why. My supposition is that they are perfectly content in this circular logic to make their fat profits in this tiny industry cuz it requires minimal effort. That is until they start getting crushed by their smarter competition. I'm telling ya, just wait. My hunch is that Hondajet is not going to have to overcome the financial hurdles that Eclipse has been attempting to endure. Not with Mother Honda supporting in the background. If they can navigate the regulatory challenges my prediction is that they will start printing money because they know how to make a profit on Civics.

 

[Mike S]

Mullan v. Quickie Aircraft Corp. was essentially reversed by the tenth circuit Court of Appeals, Colorado. Not much else to go on that I could find.

Ted, thanks for the update----I did not know that the decision was overturned.

BUT, QAC still went out of business due to this lawsuit.

Who won???? Lawyers.

Who lost????? Everyone else.

 

[JHines]

And you Mike, have just proven my very point. I could not have said it any better. And though I believe liability, regulation, and economies of scale are contributing factors I also believe that the manufacturers are sitting on a gold mine they, for some reason, choose not to harvest. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why. My supposition is that they are perfectly content in this circular logic to make their fat profits in this tiny industry cuz it requires minimal effort. That is until they start getting crushed by their smarter competition. I'm telling ya, just wait. My hunch is that Hondajet is not going to have to overcome the financial hurdles that Eclipse has been attempting to endure. Not with Mother Honda supporting in the background. If they can navigate the regulatory challenges my prediction is that they will start printing money because they know how to make a profit on Civics.

As much as I wish it were, I just do not think that is true. The fundamental problem is that the potential market (licensed pilots and those with a reasonable chance of becoming a licensed pilot) is just too small.

Basically, how many pilots do you think are out there who want a plane and have maybe $50k to spend, but not $250k? I agree there's a lot of people in that situation, but how many pilots?

Let's say Cessna converts to a more modern production line that drastically reduces labor costs. To get any real benefit they would probably have to look at redesigning the airframes from a Design for Manufacturability standpoint. That will probably force them to re-certify, and it would probably have to be under FAR Part 23. AFAIK, all their piston singles except the Skycatcher were certified under CAR 3.

So that would be a multi-million dollar investment. Let's say it brings the price of a new Skyhawk down to $50,000, or 1/5 of the current price. If they only sell five times as many, that's probably a wash at best in terms of profit.

Plus, the legions of guys who really want a plane but have $50-$75k in disposable income have a pretty big motivation to go with a kitplane - just look at all the members here.

Don't get me wrong - I share your faith in the Japanese to put out a truly superior product at a good price, and in the process to force us to get better. I was really disappointed when Toyota did not get in the GA game.

As for Honda versus Eclipse, have you been following Eclipse's travails? They are having huge problems, many of which are directly related to the fact that they decided to try to manufacture a "disruptive, new technology" aircraft at a very low price on the ASSumption that there would be a huge market.

 

[keepup]

JHines,

You make all very valid points, none of which I could dispute. Which is why I'm under no misconception that this kind of thing can take place overnight or perhaps even in a couple of decades. But it's gotta start somewhere.

You and others bring up the Cessna 162 Skycatcher. I had the unique opportunity to attend a rather intimate little presentation by the lead project manager on that program. It sounds like Cessna will make little to no money on this airplane. However, they realize that without the LSA market, little is being done to attract new pilots to the market and the costs associated with it. And without new pilots they foresee a dramatic drop in the demand for their real money-makers over the horizon. I commend Cessna for their foresight.

 

[keepup]

And though I believe liability, regulation, and economies of scale are contributing factors I also believe that the manufacturers are sitting on a gold mine they, for some reason, choose not to harvest. I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for why. My supposition is that they are perfectly content in this circular logic to make their fat profits in this tiny industry cuz it requires minimal effort.

Edit: I'm convicted about the inaccuracies of my previous convictions and feel the need to clarify. I think what I really mean is that it appear to me that manufacturers are content to rest on their laurels accepting their current profits and convince themselves that it is easier to work harder than smarter. There, that is a more accurate depiction of my sentiments.

 

[keepup]

By the way, this would also be the worldwide cure for AIDS. Which is maybe why I'm so passionate about it.....

 

[Jconard]

Regardless of whether a suit succeeds, the cost of planning for litigation is huge. The quickie example is a great one...who really won when the lawsuit put them out of business.

Typically, after a few years of discovery, and no chance of summary judgement, the parties face a jury trial. Each side will have a chance of losing at which points damages can be expected to be quite large, generally cases then settle. As a result of this basic fact, many smaller suits are almost immediately settled by insurance company for some factor of risk above or below the likely cost of litigation. These suits can cost $100K-200K to litigate so even a small settlement can be a large portion of the cost of an aircraft.

Large production numbers do not really help with aircraft because EVERY SINGLE TIME an aircraft crashes, the manufacturer and all their suppliers will be named in the suit, as opposed to cars for example where the vast majority of lawsuits from crashes do not include the manufacturer. So each aircraft's probability of becoming a lawsuit is exactly the combined probability of all types of crashes which could involve te plane.

Who cares if it would be hard to prove that an SL-30 caused a crash. Parker Hannafin lost $4Million even though it was conclusively determined that the vacum pumps in governor carnahan's plane were function perfectly at the time of the crash.

The problem with legal department scales of economy is that very few inhouse lawyers have ever seen a courtroom or picked a jury...that gets hired out and is an expensive skill to rent. In addition, rules generally require local counsel to be hired in each venue.

Without the ability to bargain for legally enforceable waivers, litigation cost will continue to be a huge factor in airplane cost.

Do you think it ws a magical coincidence that all the bigs got back into single engine GA planes shortly after GARA was passed, limiting their liability to some extent.

 

[videobobk]

In your defense, there have been several times when improved production methods have made significant differences in costs. During WWII, Ford built the B-24. Their expertise in auto manufacturing brought the build rate up to one an hour and even brought the cost of the B-17 down because of the competition. Aeronca Aircraft developed a nibbler that automatically cut tubing to the correct length and angle for welding. They were able to build much cheaper than Piper could build the Cub. How much of this type of thing is available today, I have no idea.

Bob Kelly

 

[keepup]

Perhaps I will provide a little "calibration".....

I wish I could share in detail some of the ridiculously asinine mistakes I see take place on a daily basis but I need to keep my job. Mistakes where folks just weren't being careful. Mistakes where folks mean well but that are the result of inadequate or no planning at all. Mistakes where folks just don't want to read or abide by the specification (translated laziness). Robots aren't lazy. I've even heard stories where employees have intentionally broken tools in rebellion to "the rules". That is absolutely crazy.

I overheard a conversation between a manager and someone else (although I didn't know either of them, I know one was a manager because he was also talking about conducting annual reviews of the employees reporting to him). The manager said, "Some of the airplanes that go out of here a flat embarassing." The guy he was talking to responded, "Well just don't show them [the defects] to the customers". I almost had a heart attack right there!

In an industry where the "touch labor" is so high combined with labor unions giving folks an unreasonable sense of entitlement, this is a dangerous combination which causes the customer to suffer. To be politically correct, suffice it to say there is PLENTY of "opportunity".

 

[Rabidsnipe]

keepup,

Have you been reading "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn? Your paradigm statement earlier sounded like you pulled it straight from that book.

 

[Rabidsnipe]

keepup,

I didn't read all through the previous pages so if someone has pointed this out or made a similar comment I apologize.

I see in your profile that you're a quality engineer. I also see that you're based in Wichita, KS. Based on that I'm going to guess that you work at Spirit, Cessna, or one of the other aviation related businesses up there. As a quality engineer at one of those companies I'm sure that you constantly find examples of processes and procedures that provide no value to the customer. This drives the cost up relative to the perceived value. This is what needs to be eliminated.

I'm sure if you've spent any time studying quality topics (buzz words, etc.) you've learned from Demming, et. al quality experts. From every quality transformation class, book, or seminar that I've ever studied it is stressed that improving quality and changing the paradigm of operation has to be driven from the top. The average 9-5 laborer has no intrinsic motivation to change his procedure and work method to build in more quality. It's not that he doesn't want to produce a good product it's just that there is normally little or no motivation to do so. Because of this fact, these changes have to have the buy-in from the top; all the way from the shop supervisors up to the CEO.

Now consider the current aviation market and corporate environment. Who is driving these processes and procedures that are adding no value to the customer yet are increasing the costs and are continuing to be performed? Is it Cessna? Boeing? Airbus? No it's the FAA. The FAA is the driving force behind today's aviation industry because they are the ones that tell you how you are to design, build, test, fly, and maintain your airplanes. If you're going to have a fundamental change in the way that planes are designed, manufactured, maintained, and flown, you're going to have to have the FAA buy in on the process.

Now ask yourself whether the FAA has any motivation to re-write the whole process. Does Cessna? Does Boeing? Does Piper? What about Cirrus or Eclipse? Do these companies have any motivation to persuade the FAA to change the way they do business? Just like the 9-5 laborer, their hands are tied on how they do their jobs. Are they going to start doing things differently, doing more work, when they will be expected to do things the same at the end of the day to appease the FAA? If you instigate quality from the very beginning but still perform 100% inspection at the end have you saved the customer anything? Nope.

I perceive the only way that the changes that you have described will ever take place is when the FAA choices to accept them. Further, the only way that aviation companies will be motivated to provoke any change in the FAA is when the cost of flying begins to eliminate the commercial need for it. As long as there is a business case for flying a CEO to California from New York I don't perceive you'll see much change. If Cessna keeps selling Citations they're not going to care if they sell 2 Skyhawks a year. But if we start seeing the wholesale failure of the aviation industry (Cessnas, Boeings, Southwests, Deltas,etc.) that's when you'll see change.

You've got a lot of passion and emotion. You're calling in to question the "old way" of doing things. These are great things and will be required if you are going to make the difference that you obviously want to. But for your paradigm shift to happen, you've got to either convince, eliminate, or prove useless and outdated all those who wish to maintain the "old way". Good luck ousting the FAA.

EDIT: You made a comment about if Cessna doesn't attract new pilots they won't have demand for their real money makers. I think that is a little off base. Cessna's (and almost all of aviation for that matter) real money makers is commercial/military aviation. Cessna gets their money from their biz-jets. Biz-jets aren't flown by the owners, they're flown by hired pilots. As long as there is a demand for business or military air travel, there will always be money to be made making airplanes. If that dries up, general aviation can't keep the industry afloat (and tax payers won't pay for the FAA if it's only for the rest of us dreamers).

 

[Ted Johns]

Regardless of whether a suit succeeds, the cost of planning for litigation is huge. The quickie example is a great one...who really won when the lawsuit put them out of business.

snip ... lots of good points snipped.

Do you think it was a magical coincidence that all the bigs got back into single engine GA planes shortly after GARA was passed, limiting their liability to some extent.

Can't disagree here. However, if GA was a multi trillion dollar enterprise like the automotive industry, GARA style legislation would have passed a lot quicker. More and better lobbyists equals more favorable legislation. Sad, but that's the way our government works, comrade.

 

[keepup]

keepup,

Have you been reading "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Kuhn? Your paradigm statement earlier sounded like you pulled it straight from that book.

Never heard of it, but I'll check it out. Thanks for the tip.