Rob Wolf said:
"But blanket statements like "all homebuilts are safer than certified airplanes" and "the certification process adds no safety -- it is purely bureaucratic BS" are based in ignorance."
Now, now Rob, let's not put words in others' mouths... I didn't say the certification process is "purely bureaucratic BS."
Here's what I said:
"...FAR Part 23 certification guarantees nothing except that a certificated aircraft meets the bureaucratic standards contained within the FAR."
I believe certification CAN (and should be) be a good thing, and I think the FAA started out that way back in the day. But like most bureaucracies, it has evolved (in my opinion) into an organization more concerned with its own self interest and turf (read money) protection than with those ethereal ideals of "safety" and "reliability."
Here's one example of why I think so:
I believe if those managing the FAA were truly concerned about safety and reliability, General Aviation aircraft would long ago have exited the production line with engines sporting safe and reliable (compared to magnetos) computer-controlled ignition systems, as well as computer-controlled fuel injection systems. These "newfangled" systems would ensure our engines could burn a READILY AVAILABLE fuel. Instead, aviation engine manufacturers who live in the real world of FAA certification are just now taking their first tentative steps into the 21st century of internal combustion engine technology -- a place automobile manufacturers not saddled with a "certification process" have lived for nearly three decades. Which begs the question, do you think Lycoming waited this long to join the likes of Chevrolet and Honda in the spirit of safety and reliability?
In my opinion, if our FAA certification process worked, it would have DEMANDED such "safety" and "reliability" innovations. Instead, our FAA mandates manufacturers traverse a circumspect and ridiculously Byzantine "certification" process to prove -- only to the FAA, not our courts -- such systems are safe and reliable.
If you can think of a better example of "bureaucratic BS" than that, you have my admiration!
I learned an interesting statistic in speaking with the management and development team at DeltaHawk engines (currently seeking certification for a heavy-fuel piston aviation engine). They told me that from drawing board to FAA certification, they estimate the development cost for a new-design engine to be $20 million. I know the team had a flyable prototype installed in a Velocity with around $5 million invested (including purchase and build cost for the Velocity kit). That means they are estimating FAA certification costs at somewhere north of $15 million. The ignorant and inquiring among us (me) asks how can it possibly cost SO MUCH to determine an engine meets minimum safety and reliability standards? Where is all that money going? Could it possibly be to keep an aging and voracious bureaucracy alive and well?
Can you say "bureaucratic BS?" I knew ya could...
Regards,
Mark