FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1977
1977 - 0064.PDF
-><> j» FLIGHT International, 8 January 1977 Light aviation: the US costs myth DARROL STINTON lays aside his hat as a Civil Aviation Authority light aircraft design surveyor and test pilot to write about the American private-flying scene. These views are his own, reflecting neither the policy nor the attitude of the CAA. LAST summer I visited the United States to cover the .Experimental Aircraft Association's Fly-in at Oshkosh, Wisconsin, and to call on Jim Bede in Kansas and fly his BD-5. While we were in the US my wife (who is qualified in law) and I tried to find out as much as we could about the regulation of light aviation in general, and about the rules affecting airworthiness in particular. We met doctors, lawyers, insurance people, government officers, bankers, engineers, and the enthusiastic pilots and homebuilders of every description of aircraft. We formed two conclusions. First, we believe that the UK private sector has been misled about the "American alternative" to British regulation of general aviation. The culprits are, in the main, traders in Americana and journalists of the tabloid aeronautical press. Second, a lot of nonsense is talked in Britain about our aviation prospects, nonsense which engenders unnecessary gloom. I hope in this piece to put one or two matters into perspective. America is thought of as the country of free enter prise and big business. We found it so, but were told that an insidious change is taking place. The consumer is beginning to see the producer as "the bad guy" and a target for products liability action. Legal costs are high, and litigation is big business. In spite of a common English-speaking heritage, the law in the United States and Britain differs significantly. For this reason we cannot simply pick up the American system, treating it as an alternative to our own, and trans plant it to the UK. Each US state is effectively a country with a government of its own. National direction comes from the Federal Government, with its body of law applied to aviation by the Federal Aviation Administration. There are also state laws tailored to local requirements. All but two states have their own State Aeronautics Departments (SADs) headed by a Commissioner answerable to the Governor. The SADs support the FAA and National Transportation Safety Board (NT'SB) while pursuing their own policies within state boundaries. US regulation of aviation is paid for by federal and state taxes, the latter collected mainly as user charges. In certain states taxes are also paid on ownership of an air craft, just as they are on cars, boats and other goods. Broadly, federal taxation pays for the FAA, state levies for the SADs. The FAA has around 54,000 employees, compared with the British CAA's 8,300. Its manpower and effort are limited by the money available, and are paid for from the General Fund of the US Treasury. British fliers find America's free (paid for by the tax payers, that is) certificate of airworthiness system particu larly attractive. But various FAA officers believe that within a short while, perhaps two years, rising costs will force the US aircraft owner to pay for his C of A. By comparison with the taxpayer-supported FAA, Britain's CAA must be paid for by the industry and users. According to the CAA Annual Report and Accounts 1975-76, 80 per cent of the Authority's staff provide air traffic services. They are therefore paid for largely through user charges. In America, however, such services are seen as meeting national as well as state needs, and are funded accordingly. This contrast in policies is unlikely to come to an end until Britons who do not own aircraft—and who frequently earn enough to run an aircraft anyway—stop being jealous of those who do. The high cost of anything going wrong, resulting in legal and court costs or medical and repair bills, causes Americans to exhibit what seems to be an almost Teutonic obedience and self-discipline. For example, they pick up litter on airfields, leaving them spotless in spite of crowds (as at Oshkosh) of up to 100,000 at times. Americans tend to carry heavier insurance burdens than the British to protect them against claims. Examples of the various kinds of insurance which exist include cover for products liability, malpractice, professional liability, omissions and deficiency. Extensive products liability laws are making their way into statute books across the USA. Aviation attorney Harry A. Wilson believes that manufacturers have a duty to ensure that their customers are competent to handle their products. It is predicted that manufacturers' legal defence costs for products liability actions, currently run ning at around 6 per cent of gross sales, are likely to increase to 15 per cent or so. This will in turn force up aircraft prices. A US insurance broker told us that the insurance load is spread more widely in aviation than in other areas, allowing owners to get away with smaller premiums. Whereas a doctor might pay a quarter or even a third of his salary for cover against malpractice claims, the light- aircraft owner tends to find his liability shared among the manufacturer and subcontractors, maintenance organisa tion, the operator and himself. Even so, figures obtained in Amerioa and later in London suggest that the US owner pays half as much again, and sometimes twice as much, as his British counterpart to insure similar aircraft operating in similar roles. The accompanying diagram roughly portrays the checks and balances affecting the American owner-pilot, forces which tend to lead to more responsible conduct. Where in Britain, for example, could one fly without accident all week in one of two concentric circuits with 25 other amateur-flown homebuilt aeroplanes, in R/T silence and using one half of a Gatwick-sized airfield crowded with 100,000 people and 1,000 aircraft on the ground? There are 5,000 homebuilt movements on a peak day at the EAA's Oshkosh meet, and scheduled movements continue uninterupted on the other half of the airfield at the same time. About 25 years ago the US Government announced that the country's future lay in the air, a pronouncement from which many freedoms flowed. One result was the founda tion of the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), which provides advice, but no responsibility for certifica tion, to several thousand homebuilt aircraft owners. The FAA does not demand to see design calculations before certificating a homebuilt. After two inspections (one before covering, one after) the homebuilder is allowed to flight-test his device for 50 hours with an approved engine, or for 75 hours if the powerplant is unapproved. He is allocated a clear area of sky over uninhabited terri tory, and if he falls out of it he hurts nobody but himself. In the USA there is a marked concentration upon not only maintaining, but actively improving, the standard of the man. The FAA is profoundly concerned with educa tion and further education. I was told by a General Aviation District Office chief in California that if the
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
