– Steve Hitchen
Composite materials have great strength-to-weight ratios and can be formed into more aerodynamic shapes than metal, which has seen them lauded as the future material for aircraft construction. But will that really happen? Is the general aviation industry progressive, or are we so wedded to metal that composites will never make the same in-roads in GA that they have in the recreational and LSA sectors? With the higher-value aircraft, there is plenty of evidence that composites are taking over: the SR22 is easily out-selling the Bonanza, Saratoga and M350 combined; the Diamond twins are leaving the Seneca and Baron well behind. But the story is very different in the four-seat market, where the combination of Cessna's old faithful C172 and the Piper Archer III is leading the composite DA40 and SR20 numbers. Furthermore, one of the best clean-sheet GA aircraft produced in the past 25 years, Tecnam's P2010, is lagging well behind everyone. And now, Vulcanair has waded into the fight with the V1.0, which is an all-metal aeroplane unashamedly targeting Cessna's C172SP market share. The company has revived and redeveloped an old 1960s design, completely shunning composites along the way. The reasons may be two-fold: firstly most of the development work was already done; secondly, it costs a Rajah's ransom to develop and certify completely new aeroplanes, which is what Vulcanair would have needed to do to adopt composites. The governing regulation, FAR23, has been re-written to make it easier and cheaper to certify new designs, and this might encourage traditional metal-aircraft builders to look more closely at composites in the future. A watershed moment in general aviation will be if Cessna revives the composite-metal hybrid Next Generation Piston (NGP) concept it was showing off over 10 years ago, and it is accepted by the market in great numbers. However, aircraft builders are commercial companies, and if the market wants metal, I am sure they will continue to offer it.
The GA industry has stopped short of labeling the BITRE GA Study report as another version of the deservedly-maligned Aviation White Paper, but there is certainly disappointment in the ranks of the lobby groups. There was a lot riding on the integrity of the report, and although it presented an accurate depiction of the industry as it stands today, it doens't really provide much in the way of solutions. But was it supposed to? The study was to be exactly that: an examination of the industry producing a set of measures, and it has done that reasonably well. To be fair to BITRE, there are conclusions and opportunities, but no recommendations; BITRE was probably not well equipped to recommend anything, and it was not part of the original brief. The job of making recommendations will now fall to the General Aviation Advisory Group (GAAG). However, that is no guarantee that things will actually get done; several members of the group have privately expressed the sentiment that GAAG is somewhat toothless. GA's issue is that we can't afford it to be. Greg Russell from TAAAF is right: 2018 needs to be the year things start to happen. Failure of the GA Study to produce action to revitalise our industry is likely to start GA on journey to the end of the line for which we can't buy a return ticket. It really is our final line of defence, and if it falls, the day is lost. I suppose the good news is that we will finally know if the government is serious about wanting a healthy GA industry as the Deputy Prime Minister promised at Tamworth all those months ago.
There are quasi-confirmed reports out of Canberra this week that CASA has dumped the proposal to go with 20-mile radius CTAF. This seems to be a rush of sensibility; it was never a workable solution that addressed an issue that probably never existed. Some perspective here: a 20 nm radius makes the CTAF 40 nm wide. That would have, for example, stretched the Wollongong CTAF out to cover Mittagong! We'll be talking about this for many years to come, mainly trying to answer the question of how this proposal ever made it to paper. More than one source has told me that the proposal was supported within CASA by only four people: the four who proposed it! Apparently no-one else in the regulator wanted it, and the options in the NPRM didn't include the most logical answer. It also seems the driving force for such a prescriptive measure was the regional airline sector. The Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) submission to the NPRM certainly supports the 40-mile CTAF. This accusation has been supported by Dick Smith, who told Australian Flying that one regional airline pilot expressed the belief that if GA was gone, it would force people to fly with the regionals. Personally, I am hoping this is the view of one pilot only, but if the regional airlines have the ability to force through a 40-nm wide CTAF when only four people in the regulator supported it, I am afraid the regionals have perhaps a serious amount of clout. Now, this is all very good and reliable intelligence, but there has been no official announcement that the proposal has been dumped, and from what I hear, there may never be one. I guess some things are ugly enough for CASA to want them to die quietly, but it leaves the original question unanswered: what is the best frequency to broadcast on if the airfield does not have its own CTAF?
Red Bull Air Race is back this weekend and Matt Hall is as fired up as ever to have a crack at the championship. He and his team spent 2017 tuning their new Edge 540 race plane, but still got some very good results toward the end of the season. If they have the Edge on song for 2018, a serious tilt at the championship is not out of the question at all. Hall has the skill, his team the dedication and expertise and the Edge 540 is a proven winner, so what's to stand in their way? The 13 other pilots who also eyeing off the championship trophy! With a first-time champion in Muroya, and some new faces on the podiums last year, there is probably no clear favourite to win the series at this stage. Anyone can win; no-one can be written off, and it all starts in Abu Dhabi this weekend.
There's good news from Wagga Wagga this week where the combined lobbying power of the aero club and AOPA Australia has managed to fight off significant usage charges at the airport. Instead, the council has agreed to review the airport's operations and financial footing, and through an advisory committee, the local users are going to have significant input into the airport's future. This doesn't mean that charges are dead forever, and with the council CEO all in favour of charging users, you would have to say the matter is not dead in the water. However, the approach the councillors have taken is very encouraging, and one that could serve as an example for other airport-owning councils around Australia to follow. We all need watch the developments at Wagga Wagga with great interest; it's a vital airport in the eastern state GA infrastructure, and operational changes there will in one way or another effect nearly everyone who flies.
May your gauges always be in the green,
Hitch