|
|
|
|
|
by p_l
1219 days ago
|
|
Ability to safely bring down a plane does depend on availability of engine power, however, as lack of it can greatly cut off possible options not to mention engine can fail in such a way that you won't be able to recover before stalling. FAA doesn't force them to use older tech, anyway. It's just that a lot of smaller planes coast on grandfathering of older engines. Believe me, a lot of CAAs would simply love it if they could force removal of carburator-based engines outside of museum planes, because carburators are one of the core causes for engine-related crashes in GA, and requiring injection based systems would reduce a whole subcategory of accidents. Thing is, FAA and other CAA are only requiring that you do follow through sometimes ornerous but generally sane testing requirements if you want to bring a new design. This causes considerable up front issues for new designs, but there's a reason why there's much less complaint about it than one would imagine - the ornerous rules are for when you want full certification for the plane, not any of the lower classes. TFA author was trying for full certification, so that the resulting plane would be fully usable without special allowances for flight training for PPL(A), not any of the lower-category licenses. For just flying once you have a license, the requirements are less steep. [1] [1] My father is currently rebuilding a crashed Cessna 152, question of how deeply tested the engine will be (and thus whether the resulting type certificate would allow PPL(A) training) were discussed a lot |
|