A discussion on Hacker Newsabout the proposed MOSAIC rule that the FAA is planing on implementing soon made me realize widespread misconceptions about general aviation.
The notion that general aviation is exclusively for the ultra-wealthy is not true. A single engine, two seat airplane costs around EUR 200 000—hardly pocket change. Yet in Norway, where the average holiday cabin sells for €500,000, this seems less extravagant. Moreover, most recreational pilots never buy their own aircraft. My local club, like many others, owns three aircraft shared among its members. A Cessna 172, used regularly by some 20 club members, costs about €170 per hour to rent, fuel included.
There are very good accident statistics for all kinds of airplanes, but unfortunately, there is much less data on other risks to compare it to. The average fatal crash rate per 100 000 hours for private planes hovers between 1.2 and 1.4 with more reliable aircraft, like the Cessna 172, achieving rates as low as of 0.56. For context, private aircraft experience 5.5 fatal accidents per million departures, compared with one per million for commercial jets.
This statistic includes the kind of guy that managed to have 7 accidents in 7 days.
Roughly 70% of accidents involve pilot error—perhaps poor weather decisions or, in extreme cases, flying under the influence. In my view, the risk level appears similar to motorcycling, though the nature of the risk differs. While motorcyclists often face dangers from other drivers or road conditions, pilots generally have more control over their risk factors.
Taking a Cessna 172 as an example, it has a cruise speed of about 200 Km per hour and may burn 30 liters hourly. This gives a consumption of 15 liters per 100 Km. This is similar to a big old SUV, but hardly shocking. Even that is an overstatement, because an airplane will usually fly a fairly straight line, while roads in a country like Norway are very winding. There are 340 Km between Oslo and Stavanger, but the fastest route by road between the two cities is actually 550 Km long. Considering a normal car that averages 7 liters per 100 Km, it will use 38.5 liters of fuel, while an airplane may use 51 liters, or 30% more, not twice more.
Flying may also reduce emissions by helping make stays shorter. Same-day return flights might even reduce overall environmental impact by avoiding hotel stays and their CO2 equivalent emissions.
One kg of fuel produces about 3 kg CO2 (one liter of fuel wights slightly less than a Kg). People may confuse the emissions of jet airplanes with those of lighter aircraft, but they are very different. According to this emissions calculator a trip from Oslo to Stavanger for 4 persons in a jet airplane emits 448 Kg CO2. The same trip in a light aircraft will emit less than 150 Kg CO2, about two thirds less.
Leaded fuel is still allowed in general aviation, but modern aircraft engines can use unleaded fuel or jet-A (diesel). All the airplanes at my club use unleaded fuel.
There is a good video series on Youtube on the history of aviation fuel. To sum it up, if there is yet no replacement to leaded fuel, it is mostly for a lack of political will and lack of interest from producers.
Aircraft may last 25 000 hours. Which means that old models from the 60s and 70s are still in regular use. Newer airplanes do not use leaded fuel.
For a car trip, I find that a three hour drive is about the limit of what I find convenient. The range of a three hour drive from Asker looks like this:
This means that I cannot visit any real city apart from Oslo on a day trip. On the other hand, with a small aircraft with a cruise speed slightly over 200 km/hour, I can reach Stockholm or Copenhagen, not to mention all the fjords on the west coast of Norway.
I hope that if more people fly, old planes will be used up and this will drive more demand for innovative aircraft. Sales of small aircraft is a niche market. Production numbers are very low, even for successful designs. 4000 new GA aircraft were delivered in the US in 2023. For comparison, over a million new cars are sold every month in the US.
Electric trainer aircraft with one hour autonomy are already in production. I expect that electric aircraft will be the norm as battery technology improves. Since electric motors are small, newer configurations with several propellers, more drone-like, may be common. This will make small aircraft safer, more efficient and easier to fly—perhaps finally delivering on the long-promised dream of flying cars.
Last updated: 2024-11-27