I guessed that one right…
Congress has to step in and do the FAA Administrator’s job and return the MAX back to service. Once again we are WAY OVER PAYING this over-weighted bureaucracy. Thousands and thousands of FAA employees are hiding under their cubical desk waiting for their retirement date while congressman are discussing pilot training requirements.
Isn’t there a regulation that covers crew member training?
1 reply
A year after the grounding and with the MAX approaching reentry into the active fleet, and the OIG is just now getting around to an audit of flight crew training? Where have they been for the last 12 months?
Please don’t expect too much from the DOT Aviation Subcommittee IG. Contrary to its original intent, the IG office has become largely a political tool of the House. The last time we heard from the IG he was making the case for privatizing ATC at the direction of the Transportation Committee Chairman (Schuster).
This thing is not gonna fly unless the Feds are completely absolved. The DOT has to pass the smell test. This is too big, complex and unwelcome. The world is a witness.
Okayy, so they do look at airline training standards, I am not impressed. How about starting at the beginning and creating and enforcing a set of actual pilot training standards from the get go? Yes, there are “practical standards” for all the ratings, but that doesn’t seem to mean much. As a retired big iron driver, I certainly saw a lot of right-seaters that held “paper” but little real knowledge about standards or aviation in general. They of course, knew the bare minimum but lots of easy stuff seemed to never have been covered. I know of various ratings that were actually “bought” not earned. I asked the FAA to look into one instructor that was passing a student, I worked with in a capacity outside aviation, but telling the student not to bother learning a myriad of things that would be important. As a newly minted CFI this same kid almost crashed a plane by trying to get a student to do something I would have been challenged to try.
Training at the carrier level has issues, yes, but the root problem goes much deeper than that.
Contrary to the oft repeated mantra that the FAA is an overstuffed/underworked government agency quite the opposite is true. Government has been so underfunded and staffing so reduced that agencies like the FAA do not have the qualified people to proved effective oversight. “Less government” is not the solution.
4 replies
Thanks Ron for replying, So what exactly does the FAA need to put the MAX back in the air? Many companies are loosing billions of dollars so, whatever it takes. NASA said they just need $38 billion to send people to the moon, will $38 billion put the MAX back in the air? if so lets get it done and move forward.
Who do we give the money to?
I agree. It is amazing how many right seaters I have had who did not even know that you fly a traffic pattern in VFR in a jet or that could not figure out how to fly a traffic pattern! That’s private pilot stuff. I am still trying to figure out what the audit of international training standards is going to accomplish.
How much funding does it take to say no?
We could test the situation by having the FAA propose a number needed to do something and then evaluate their answer, but the first thing they will say is they need funds to examine how much the new project will cost.
Sorry, but bureaucracy never has enough money. They cannot even put out a believable sum of what would be enough in fear they might be held to account when they fail anyways.
The trick just might be to ask them what responsibilities they need to give up to get under budget. Think about that one a bit.
Why don’t the airlines train their own employees, then? If you leave the whole thing up to small businesses that spend all their time on compliance, risk mitigation, and worrying about bankruptcy, you should be grateful you get what you do.
While you are at it, build your own airports and stop blaming all your delays on traffic you guys cause yourselves.
David C. and Matt W. I agree as well, I’ve been involved on both ends, a Corporate Pilot (back in mid '80’s) but my career took me to Managing Corporate Jets for Fortune 100 companies over the years. The problem started when the Knowledge Tests were made public back in the Mid 1970’s because of a judge ruling… Now mechanics and pilots memorize test questions and the scores average in the 90’s and a lot close to 100!!!
When I did the A&P and Pilot Exams in the late 70’s early 80’s, we had to take block instruction, taking “similar questioned tests” developed by the individual schools (most often a variation of the ACME Guides). You had to study the entire circular and understand it enough to reasonably answer the questions on the FAA test because one would have to understand the material. Scores during that time were averaging from mid 70’s to high 80’s. Yest the FAA written exams were hard to pass!!
What you have now is a generation of pilots and mechanics that receive their certificates by memorizing questions from ground schools that recite the actual test questions over and over until passing is achieved on the exact test questions they will be taking for the FAA…
1 reply
Yes, yes, we all agree there is a problem.
Why is it you think it’s a government problem? You all took jobs providing a service to companies that needed to get people from one airport to another. It’s really important, and complex, but it’s not brain surgery.
Believe it or not, any licensed doctor can do brain surgery. The government does not check. Also, doctors are prevented by law from unionizing so a union cannot check. The Board certificates are not regulated and not required.
You guys have many solutions for this stuff. Why always default to making the FAA fix it?
1 reply
Because the FAA makes the rules. In the pt135 world every aspect of the air carrier operation has to be approved by that carrier’s FAA principal operations inspector. I would guess the same applies to Pt121 ops as well. Any changes an air carrier wants to make to it’s training program has to be approved by that POI. One of the many issues this presents is that the enforcement is not the same from FSDO to FSDO as is any interpretations, time and duty rules are another example. I agree with Ron C. in that the FAA is so underfunded the delays involved when dealing with air carrier approvals can be very long. I could site all kinds of examples in delays involved making changes dealing with the FAA, it would probably exceed the word allowance of this blog!
Put FAA management to work.
Less government is always the solution. But perhaps ‘more targeted’ government would help.
Any doctor can do brain surgery. Perhaps that’s why the US health care system kills a medium-sized city worth of people, through preventable medical errors, each year. So airplane crashes and shootings make the news, but they kill, essentially, a handful of people compared to other causes.
“In OTHER breaking news, the Fulton Airphibian ‘flying car’ flew in 1946–75 years ago. It could cruise at speeds up to 110 statute miles per hour, and carried 1-4 people on board (though it had a useful load of only 600#). The “flying car” was certified by the CAA in 1950, but only 4 prototypes were produced. It joins the Waterman Aerobile (1937, 5 produced–no retail sales) and the British Portsmouth Aerocar (1 produced–none certified) of the 1940s. Not to be forgotten, Molt Taylor’s Aerocar of 1949 (6 built, one certified in 1956).”
Hardly newsworthy–roadworthy, or airworthy–16 “flying cars” built in 84 years, and only two certifications–I wouldn’t “bet the farm” on this one succeeding, either.
1 reply
Now just wait a doggone minute! This thing runs on petrol … how are we gonna save the planet with all manner of flying cars zipping around and the cost soaring because we’re going back to being energy dependent? Sure hope it has ADS-B? Well … at least it isn’t vaporware … just of no interest to the masses.
If you buy a real plane and have a real car at the airport, it’s cheaper, faster, safer, AND more efficient. Did I miss something?
Let a car be a car, and a plane be a plane. come on man!
Proving once again that there are still people out there who do not recognize the difference between feasible and practical!
I’m not going to bother stating the obvious about of flying cars, others will beat that dead horse. Unlike many of the commenters I like to see people make interesting things happen and can put concerns about viability and such aside and appreciate something cool when I see it. I like the design, it looks like something out of Blade Runner, and the tube frame 3D model I saw of its structure was interesting. The BMW K1600 motorcycle engine is a tidy choice, a small Inline 6 which is light, relatively cheap, port injected, has a timing chain, has an integrated transmission with longitudinal output shaft, and is certainly simpler and more reliable than any modern small car engine is likely to be. This engine is also a stressed member in the motorcycle, so if the engineers used it as a stressed member in this aircraft, there are weight savings to be had.
One of the reasons I like to see this kind of thing is that I’m an engineer in aerospace with a love for cars, and from an engineering standpoint, flying cars are really close to being a dream of the past. People are just going to give up on it eventually. First off, general aviation is dying due to costs soaring into the mesosphere like a U2 with an afterburner, we’re seeing LSA toys reaching prices that small certified GA planes used to cost and the used market is vulnerable to attrition. Secondly, the regulatory structure has become onerous for both GA and small carmakers. It’s a wonder we ever see any small ventures give it a shot these days given the staggering costs of the red tape. Modern auto standards; emissions, fuel economy and safety, will have even dreamers are finding after back-of-the-envelope calculations that it’s just not feasible to make a street legal plane, let alone use an emissions approved modern engine in a light aircraft. The complexity is too great, the reliability too poor, and bulky modern catalytic converters are a hot and heavy liability for an aircraft. Furthermore a car that meets modern crash test standards has to be strong in places that an aircraft does not, so a significant weight penalty is incurred once you make it strong in the places an aircraft does have to be strong. Take the reciprocating engine out of the picture and go EV and you’ve even more weight to deal with. Batteries have laughable energy density and don’t get lighter as you drain them, this will be a significant hurdle at least until the next big thing in batteries which is always “5-10 year away” is honestly 5-10 years away instead of just being touted as such to keep the research funding coming. Enjoy the cool concepts while you can, people. The world of aviation and cars is destined to become more boring in your lifetimes.
Wicked cool. Totally impractical but still, wicked cool.
Well, it seems better than the Terramess whatever.
Not a great shape for car, but hotcar shape gives low drag.
Why doesn’t the math work? The speed increase isn’t necessarily linear with the horsepower increase.
My question with this thing is WWAS? (What Would Avemco Say?)
1 reply
Simplistically, with all else being the same, drag increases by the square of an increase in speed. Twice the speed? Four times the drag. To counteract that drag, you need four times the horsepower, to double the speed.
A 300 hp engine has 187% of the power of a 160 hp engine. The square root of 1.87 is 1.37
Consequently, an 87% increase in horsepower can be expected to yield a theoretical 37% increase in speed.
137% of the cited 103 knots for the 160 hp vehicle is 141 knots; not 162.
That blistering speed would require 396 hp. Again, all other things being equal.
When a proponent makes a preposterous claim, they lose credibility. I don’t know what the real numbers are, but I know that the cited ones are self-contradictory.
3 replies
I see the points of the above commenters and agree. Buy a plane (already a terrible investment 
and leave a 1996 Ford at the airport. Problem solved.
But this thing is James Bond level cool.
What is also interesting is Slovakia. That country is developing some amazing tech and engineering rivaling the Germans and the Japanese, and has been producing some of the best bicycle racers in the world as of late.
I do agree that an aircraft is an aircraft and a car is a car. Let them be as they are!
By far the coolest one yet. Hides just about everything but the prop. Probably just for USA rich, white privileged folks. Better ask Russ Niles how guilty he would feel about flying/driving one. BTW does it have a gender? Would not want to hurt anyone’s feelings.
As is often the case, nice work Yars!
I think you are assuming there are not changes to the vehicle. I get the impression the next version will be a different craft. I’m no engineer, but I think your formula is for swapping engines without significant change to the aircraft. 300hp can certainly pull a plane over 162 knots.
2 replies
With a 25% reduction in drag?
That’s what the cited performance figures require.
Not 2.5% - 25%.
If you are in love with your plane it seems to fit. The better you treat them the more they will take care of you. Something to respect and revere. She. Feels right to me . The personification of things, you may call it whatever you like, but it is more than the sum if it’s parts.
“300hp can certainly pull a plane over 162 knots.”
But can 300 hp pull a car - a flying car - at more than 162 knots?
Maybe. But that flying car would need to have only 75% of the drag that this prototype one has.
A 25% reduction in drag? Tall order, for any design project.
Drag force goes as the square of the velocity but power is force X velocity so the power required goes as the cube of velocity. Want to go twice as fast, it takes 8 times the power assuming everything else stays the same.
Nah. Hang in the 5 or 10 percent early enough or long enough, and you can buy most any toy. Just have to have priorities.
V marketing is rarely attained by any project anyways.