LGHarlan wrote:
Wichita made an airplane-in the case of the heavy singles and light
twins that
racked up most of the judgments and settlements-that the customer
base-people
with money and usually dismally trained-were not capable of handling.

Yes, that was the basic problem. Of course making the planes docile
enough to handle - and paying the certification costs of same - would
have made the planes totally unaffordable. Therein lies the inherent
problem. On the one hand, the tort system demands you make the planes
to modern standards of user-friendliness. On the other hand, the FAA
will not allow you to use modern technology without prohibitively
expensive certification.

Note that I meant what I said. Certification itself is not inherently
expensive. The people who designed the Husky spent less than $400K on
the entire design - including certification. Of course if you were to
fly your Husky through a time machine and land in 1955, you could take
it to any mechanic to fix. Not only would he be able to get all the
parts (and chemicals, for the fabric) he needed, but he wouldn't even
notice anything odd about the airplane other than the avionics. It's
easy (and cheap) to certify a design with nothing but WWII technology,
because that's what the FAA engineers understand. Try it with modern
technology, and you will be paying for their education - or adding
rivets to composite structures.

The fault is pretty much equally split between the evil and stupid FAA
bureaucrats who make modern technology impossibly expensive for GA and
the evil and greedy lawyers who will punish the manufacturers who have
no choice but to build with obsolete technology.

It had
characteristics that were suitable for day VFR use but which made IFR
and
night VFR operations by minimally trained owners, most of whom did
not fly
enough hours to remain current, a marginal proposition.

BTW - how come we're not blaming the owners here for going cheap on the
training (in those expensive airplanes) and not staying current?

Research in the 1960s proved single pilot IFR operations required a
major
workload reduction from the WWII-era instrumented and configured
aircraft.

Required? So why are hundreds of us still flying WWI-era standard? I
don't think we're all Chuck Yeager. Could it be that we're simply
people who decided not to cheap out on the training and fly enough to
stay current?

Single lever power control, the drum-pointer altimeter, an alternate
attitude
and heading indicator (no 'needle ball and alcohol': that's for black
and white
war movies) and avionics easily operable without looking down on
approach were
indicated. The military in fact revised both the cockpit layout and
its
approach procedures after spates of Sabre and T-33 crashes in the
1950s.

Yes, they didn't have to worry about costs or FAA certifications.

Wichita ignored all this. Its only response when we started suing
them was to
'shoot, shovel,and shut up' and buy more liability insurance
coverage.

And given the costs of certification, what choice did they have?

Why aren't you suing the FAA bureaucrats who cause the problem? Could
it be because it's not about fault after all, but just about the money?

Harley-Davidson motorcycles are more dangerous than any airplane,
and they are
still made in America by a profitable company that is the antithesis
of
judgment-proof. With the exception of the federal statute of
limitations , the
liability laws are the same for H-D as Cessna, Piper, and Beech.

First, it's not true. Airplanes are no safer than motorcycles - much
proof to that effect exists.

Second, the certification laws are not at all the same, and neither are
the product volumes.

And third, enough people know about motorcycles that it's pretty hard
to get a judgment against the manufacturer when it's obvious that the
fault lay with the rider and/or a driver.

The high cost of type certification and widespread abuse of
Experimental/Amateur-Built provisions are what deters interest in new
personal
aircraft startups.

I won't argue the cost of type certification - it's probably a bigger
problem than product liability - but if you think amateur-built is a
serious competitor to factory built, you're kidding yourself.
Homebuilts are only a tiny segment of the market, and if you're looking
for something that is competitive with those light twins and larger
singles - you'll just keep on looking. If I could find a homebuilt
with the cabin room, speed, range, and redundancy of my 1965 Wichita
(actually Lock Haven) special, I would have already bought it.

Michael