GA & QC

Guest Discussion
1

I’ll preface the following comments by saying that all new aircraft designs have had teething problems and I know that CD is devoting the best of intentions and best of efforts to solving these things as they come up. Moreover, in the modified Cessna 182 which I bought recently I had the same crankshaft problem as the Illinois sr20–thankfully it was caught before I enjoyed the experience of becoming a 2900 lb glider at 11,500 feet over Sonora Pass–but nearly 7 weeks after diagnosis this “Fools Gold Medallion Engine” is STILL not back from TCM!

Why is there a seeming profusion of problems like this in GA, and why does the GA marketplace tolerate it? These planes are not nearly so technologically sophisticated as modern automobiles, yet any new auto design or auto component that had similar problems would be hooted out of the place or disappear from the market in short order.

The AD/Service Bulletin list for the new post-1997 Cessnas is as thick as “Crime and Punishment”–and many owners must themselves feel like the characters in that work.

I have heard more than one Malibu owner joke that they have their A&P meet them on the ramp right after landing.

Can you imagine the uproar and consequences that would ensue if a major automotive engine manufacturer had the kind of problems TCM is experiencing lately? I doubt they would be in business very long. Granted TCM is doing the best they can to make things right, but in the automotive industry with its quality control vigilance would this have happened in the first place? I wonder.

There is no shortage of other examples. I’m sure most of us would have our own version of what I could say: “If I did my job (biotech research) this way, I would shortly be pounding the pavement, rumpled, unshaven, hollow-eyed and vacuous, carrying a sign reading, ‘Will Clone For Food.’”

What gives here? Not enough competition? Too small a market?

One of the issues contributing to the reticence of many to become pilots and/or owners is reliability: Most people just don’t see why one shouldn’t be able to count on one’s plane–for which one pays 5X-10X more than a car to own and operate–to be as reliable as one’s car. Turn the key and expect it to start, EVERY TIME. Operate it according to reasonably simple procedures with routine scheduled maintenance and expect it to go the equivalent of 100K-150K miles without any major work (i.e. top overhauls). Open and close the door and expect it to seal properly (and definitely not fall off), THOUSDANDS OF TIMES. Turn on the radios and expect them to work, THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

Am I missing something? The GA manufacturer that changes this–and I hope and expect the first one could be Cirrus Design–will rightfully earn the profound gratitude of all of GA and help to ensure its bright future.

2

Here’s a guess from a newbie – $$ and demand. High-time pilots are used to problems and so have stopped complaining (witness the so far relative aplomb the issue of a door falling off has been greeted by) In the auto world, every plane would be grounded until that new hinge was in. Period.

Demand – after a 20 year slump aviation is only now coming around and so fifty year-old technology is still okay what it comes to engines…

Consider the new Eclipse Jet that is being developed. If it can be built as designed - it will absolutely shatter the market for high end GA and low-end business aircraft. An 800K Jet. 99 percent of people in aviation think it is impossible – just as I’m sure many believe inexpensive self-monitoring pistons are impossible for the rest of us. In another few years I hope these too will be a reality. But none of this will happen until the money and incentive are there to push quality control and competition back into the market. Can you imagine the auto world with only two main engine manufacturers???

3

I’ll preface the following comments by saying that all new aircraft designs have had teething problems and I know that CD is devoting the best of intentions and best of efforts to solving these things as they come up. Moreover, in the modified Cessna 182 which I bought recently I had the same crankshaft problem as the Illinois sr20–thankfully it was caught before I enjoyed the experience of becoming a 2900 lb glider at 11,500 feet over Sonora Pass–but nearly 7 weeks after diagnosis this “Fools Gold Medallion Engine” is STILL not back from TCM!

Why is there a seeming profusion of problems like this in GA, and why does the GA marketplace tolerate it? These planes are not nearly so technologically sophisticated as modern automobiles, yet any new auto design or auto component that had similar problems would be hooted out of the place or disappear from the market in short order.

The AD/Service Bulletin list for the new post-1997 Cessnas is as thick as “Crime and Punishment”–and many owners must themselves feel like the characters in that work.

I have heard more than one Malibu owner joke that they have their A&P meet them on the ramp right after landing.

Can you imagine the uproar and consequences that would ensue if a major automotive engine manufacturer had the kind of problems TCM is experiencing lately? I doubt they would be in business very long. Granted TCM is doing the best they can to make things right, but in the automotive industry with its quality control vigilance would this have happened in the first place? I wonder.

There is no shortage of other examples. I’m sure most of us would have our own version of what I could say: “If I did my job (biotech research) this way, I would shortly be pounding the pavement, rumpled, unshaven, hollow-eyed and vacuous, carrying a sign reading, ‘Will Clone For Food.’”

What gives here? Not enough competition? Too small a market?

One of the issues contributing to the reticence of many to become pilots and/or owners is reliability: Most people just don’t see why one shouldn’t be able to count on one’s plane–for which one pays 5X-10X more than a car to own and operate–to be as reliable as one’s car. Turn the key and expect it to start, EVERY TIME. Operate it according to reasonably simple procedures with routine scheduled maintenance and expect it to go the equivalent of 100K-150K miles without any major work (i.e. top overhauls). Open and close the door and expect it to seal properly (and definitely not fall off), THOUSDANDS OF TIMES. Turn on the radios and expect them to work, THOUSANDS OF TIMES.

Am I missing something? The GA manufacturer that changes this–and I hope and expect the first one could be Cirrus Design–will rightfully earn the profound gratitude of all of GA and help to ensure its bright future.
I think it important to differentiate between aviation’s various market segments, and recognize that manufacturers have little incentive to spend money on aircraft that sell for less than a million dollars, as the return on investment is negliagible at best. There is little profit at the low end of the business, where we live.

So, why do manufacturers bother at all with the low end? Cynically, I believe that Cessna has no commitment. Rather I suspect that their re-entry into the 172/182 business was motivated by a horsetrade–product liability law limitations in exchange for an uninspired re-entry into the low end. Why do others bother? Damned if I know, though brand recognition has something to do with it. In summary, traditional manufacturers can build highly reliable aircraft when the profits are adequate to sustain their interest. Where does that leave us? Frankly, we’re witnessing an incredibly interesting marketing phenomenon. A couple of passionate hobbyists (not a term of denigration, rather a recognition that all conventional logic would have directed the K brothers elsewhere) are demonstrating that a market exists at the low end. I’m betting that Cirrus’s success will inspire a lot of boardroom discussion at the traditional manufacturers. I’m hoping that this leads to a friendly acquisition of Cirrus with the kind of substantial capital investment needed to bring modern standards of quality and customer service to the low end of the ga segment. What do you think the outside directors of Cessna and Beech are saying to management, now that an upstart is the #1 selling single? At what point does corporate pride bring a response? Let’s recall what happened at Compaq a few years ago–management told the directors there was no profit in the low end pc business. The chairman of Compaq directed an independent inquiry, actually had surrogates investiage the cost of components, discovered that there was a viable and profitable low end market. Subsequently, Compaq replaced much of its management team and became a big player in the low end of the computer business. Any opinions as to whether we’ll see a similar move in the low end of ga?

4

Here’s a guess from a newbie – $$ and demand.

This is pretty much on the mark. Consider that Cirrus Design built 4 prototypes - that’s three more than a lot of would-be aircraft manufacturers, but much less than Toyota or Ford would build of a new car.

If automotive rules (and market size and finance) applied, there would be at least two prototypes flown 24 hours a day to rack up a couple of thousand hours each, there would be planes flown in extremes of hot and cold - outback Australia sees a lot of Japanese cars tested due to the punishing nature of the roads and climate extremes.

One manufacturer - Diamond - is apparently flying a DA40 around the clock, standard practice in the automotive world. But even a relatively well funded aircraft company like Cirrus cannot afford to do the kind of testing we would like them to.

Having said that, if you discount the engine problems, there have been relatively few major problems with the production SR20s - the hinge failure is the only serious one, I think. And without wanting to minimize the seriousness of it, it’s probably partly due to the fact that the SR20 actually has real doors, instead of pathetic bits of tin.

5

Here’s a guess from a newbie – $$ and demand.

This is pretty much on the mark. Consider that Cirrus Design built 4 prototypes - that’s three more than a lot of would-be aircraft manufacturers, but much less than Toyota or Ford would build of a new car.

To add to this discussion, consider the fact that an automobile would probably not be much less expensive than a light piston single if built in the quantity and manner that our airplanes are built.

It is ultimately volume that allows auto manufacturers to deliver quality and value as they do. It is true that certification of a plane is much more onerous and expensive than releasing a new model automobile, but it is also true that the certification cost has to be spread out over many fewer units in the life of the airplane model, contributing mightily to the retail sales price.

6

Here’s a guess from a newbie – $$ and demand.

This is pretty much on the mark. Consider that Cirrus Design built 4 prototypes - that’s three more than a lot of would-be aircraft manufacturers, but much less than Toyota or Ford would build of a new car.

If automotive rules (and market size and finance) applied, there would be at least two prototypes flown 24 hours a day to rack up a couple of thousand hours each, there would be planes flown in extremes of hot and cold - outback Australia sees a lo of Japanese cars tested due to the punishing nature of the roads and climate extremes.

might be worth noting that the auto guys typically build 250 to 500 “engineering prototypes” for their types to drive, the the B rev’s get built to the level of about 500 more for customer evaluations - serious stuff! They also suffer recalls, maybe not as high a percent as CD, but they do get them as we all know. It’s a numbers game for sure.

One manufacturer - Diamond - is apparently flying a DA40 around the clock, standard practice in the automotive world. But even a relatively well funded aircraft company like Cirrus cannot afford to do the kind of testing we would like them to.

Having said that, if you discount the engine problems, there have been relatively few major problems with the production SR20s - the hinge failure is the only serious one, I think. And without wanting to minimize the seriousness of it, it’s probably partly due to the fact that the SR20 actually has real doors, instead of pathetic bits of tin.

7

While tend to agree with you and I very much understand the economics of the situation, I think there is another factor … that being the exceeding bureaucratic and difficult road one must travel to get “changes” approved. In some cases changes that are “no brainers” are not brought to the table for fear the “certification” and approval process will make the decision unprofitable and not worth the investment. It is one thing to argue the economics instead of attacking the sometimes needlessly stilted and bureaucratic process. We need to ask ourselves why does it require so much work (and capital) to make changes. I certainly don’t have the answers but we all need to be looking for them.

8

exceeding bureaucratic and difficult road one must travel to get “changes” approved.

Unfortunately bureaucracies seem to be similar the world over. While we had no problem getting a Type Acceptance Certificate issued in Australia (to Cirrus’ astonishment) we have run into frustrating delays in getting the CofA issued for VH-CRF (formerly N142CD). I believe it will happen today - but then I believed it would happen yesterday, too. Most of the delay has simply been inaction - it’s not that there were problems, we just had to wait for the bureaucrats to get around to the paperwork in their own good time.

There have been some interesting issues come up - until recently, Australia required aircraft to have a locally prepared, CASA-approved, flight manual. Now, only the manufacturer-approved (and therefore in the case of an FAA-certified aircraft, FAA-approved) flight manual will do. But another rule (in place since 1971) requires the flight manual to have a warning to the pilot not to turn the generator off in flight.

But if the manufacturer’s flight manual does not contain this, it can’t be added since any changes would have to be approved by the manufacturer (and FAA) - so applied strictly this would require half the aircraft in Australia to be grounded. We’ve been granted an exemption to this rule, and I expect it will be dropped, but clearly CASA did not realize the conflict until now.

Mind you, I believe that compared to the JAA, what we have to put up with is minor!

Hopefully we fly tomorrow…

9

Clyde,

Your observation to JAA is correct. Either deal with 12+ local 'FAA’s in Europe (in serial or parallel mode, it doesn’t matter) or with the (“joint”) JAA, that are hopelessly behind on unifying almost anything. A simple matter as a uniform JAA license renewal procedure for PPL’s is at least a year behind, so imagine how long it takes for less complicated certification matters…

Oh well, landing a plane in France is a lot different than in the US I guess (aside from the standardized ATC language)… and in the meantime we’re all flying the N registered Cirrusses here and get questions from ATC in the air or others at the ramp until such time the certification is through…

Han K (N144CD in Europe)

exceeding bureaucratic and difficult road one must travel to get “changes” approved.

Unfortunately bureaucracies seem to be similar the world over. While we had no problem getting a Type Acceptance Certificate issued in Australia (to Cirrus’ astonishment) we have run into frustrating delays in getting the CofA issued for VH-CRF (formerly N142CD). I believe it will happen today - but then I believed it would happen yesterday, too. Most of the delay has simply been inaction - it’s not that there were problems, we just had to wait for the bureaucrats to get around to the paperwork in their own good time.

There have been some interesting issues come up - until recently, Australia required aircraft to have a locally prepared, CASA-approved, flight manual. Now, only the manufacturer-approved (and therefore in the case of an FAA-certified aircraft, FAA-approved) flight manual will do. But another rule (in place since 1971) requires the flight manual to have a warning to the pilot not to turn the generator off in flight.

But if the manufacturer’s flight manual does not contain this, it can’t be added since any changes would have to be approved by the manufacturer (and FAA) - so applied strictly this would require half the aircraft in Australia to be grounded. We’ve been granted an exemption to this rule, and I expect it will be dropped, but clearly CASA did not realize the conflict until now.

Mind you, I believe that compared to the JAA, what we have to put up with is minor!

Hopefully we fly tomorrow…