What about little airports? You know, the ones only old, rich, white men use in their Cessna Cubs and private jets??? Maybe we should just shut all those down, unless they have major airline service that pays for them.

Then you wouldn't be able to fly that G58 even across the country. No where for you to stop for gas along the way.

In other words, it breaks the national transportation system.

Little airports exist because it makes a national infrastructure for air transportation possible. The EAS thing came about as a result of de-regulation of the airlines. It was meant to assure that people who lived on unprofitable routes would still be able to reasonably reach a hub airport.

I don't know if EAS is the best way to run this stuff. I don't know if Cape Air is making the wisest decisions with their piston aircraft. I'm happy enough to let them figure it out. They seem to be making a go of it.

The other part, and you miss this completely, is that *every* rule the government creates, requires an entire bureaucracy to enforce it. Add a rule to the EAS that they can only buy USA made aircraft, then you need a bureaucrat to define, "USA Made Aircraft". If Cessna does composite assembly in Mexico and buys subassemblies from Australia and engines from Canada, is it still a "USA Made" airplane? What if Embraer buys avionics, engines and APU's and other substantial components from US companies and does airframe assembly in Brazil and final outfitting in the USA, is it then, "US-enough???"

What if the USA made aircraft is sent to El Salvador for a major airframe service or re-furbishment? Will it still count???

Hell, I don't know. But I am darn sure that the US government can commission a study for $50,000,000 to write a rulebook and hire at least 1200 people to enforce that rule book on all 74 aircraft used in the EAS program.

On the other hand, if they used the much simpler criteria of seeing to it that passenger and freight service is running between point x and point y at least z-number of seats each way each week, at least that's all the oversight it would need.

What about little airports? You know, the ones only old, rich, white men use in their Cessna Cubs and private jets??? Maybe we should just shut all those down, unless they have major airline service that pays for them.

Then you wouldn't be able to fly that G58 even across the country. No where for you to stop for gas along the way.

In other words, it breaks the national transportation system.

Two thoughts, 1) if that happens, that is OK. I will adapt and make different decisions. 2) more to the point... the airport system is actually part of the government. The EAS is a government (taxpayer) subsidy of private companies. Two different beasts. One is part of the gov't infrastructure the other is a subsidy of private companies.

Little airports exist because it makes a national infrastructure for air transportation possible. The EAS thing came about as a result of de-regulation of the airlines. It was meant to assure that people who lived on unprofitable routes would still be able to reasonably reach a hub airport.


Why should people who choose to live near major airports and major metropolitan areas, subsidize the travel of those who choose to live in more rural areas? Why not take this to its logical extreme and "normalize" all air fares so that the per mile average coach fare is exactly equal to the most competitive per mile coach fare on the most competitive city pairs in the country? Life is full of trade-offs. Living any place has its benefits and its drawbacks in terms of economics, access, crowds, etc.

Look at the decline in GA and aircraft sales.... fell off the cliff in 1978 coincident with the one of the oil crises, stagflation under James Earl Carter, and the inception of the EAS Act.
Wondering if GA would be more vibrant if the EAS carriers were not an option? Not stating an opinion or assertion, but asking a genuine question.

I don't know if EAS is the best way to run this stuff. I don't know if Cape Air is making the wisest decisions with their piston aircraft. I'm happy enough to let them figure it out. They seem to be making a go of it.

Not questioning the wisdom of their decision. Questioning the propriety in light of taxpayer subsidies. They are making a go of it, but due to subsidies. I don't know how EAS rates/subsidies are set, but I am guessing it is a bit of a negotiation between the carrier and the Feds. Not too hard to figure out who is likely the better negotiator. And these things, like utility rates can be gamed. There is no market. I am based at an EAS airport. Prior to learning to fly, I used to fly Cape Air quite a bit. Could not for the life of me figure out how they could afford to put three people in a plane for $50 a head, fly from KLEB to KBOS and stay in business. Yes, $50 one way. You could by a book of coupons, 10 for $500.00.. madness. The bus from our town to Boston Logan cost $35. Did I fly Cape Air? Yes. Would I have pouted or cried if the route dried up? No. I thought it was loony.

The other part, and you miss this completely, is that *every* rule the government creates, requires an entire bureaucracy to enforce it. Add a rule to the EAS that they can only buy USA made aircraft, then you need a bureaucrat to define, "USA Made Aircraft". If Cessna does composite assembly in Mexico and buys subassemblies from Australia and engines from Canada, is it still a "USA Made" airplane? What if Embraer buys avionics, engines and APU's and other substantial components from US companies and does airframe assembly in Brazil and final outfitting in the USA, is it then, "US-enough???"

No I did not "miss this completely". You missed completely that I agreed with you on the point that rules beget rules, go back and re-read if you like.

What if the USA made aircraft is sent to El Salvador for a major airframe service or re-furbishment? Will it still count???

Hell, I don't know. But I am darn sure that the US government can commission a study for $50,000,000 to write a rulebook and hire at least 1200 people to enforce that rule book on all 74 aircraft used in the EAS program.

On the other hand, if they used the much simpler criteria of seeing to it that passenger and freight service is running between point x and point y at least z-number of seats each way each week, at least that's all the oversight it would need.

SkyCourier milestone today 3.23.20

I used to fly ATR-72/42 for Fedex. The airplanes are bulk loaded with safety nets between zones. It was labor intensive and very time consuming. I always said cans were the way to go.

Not to mention, with these new lightweight cans, they have firebane in the walls. So when that undeclared haz starts to cook you have a much better allowed time to get her on the ground. And I believe some cans have fire sensors as well.

Lastly, to mitigate load shift, you simply fill all spots with a can empty or not.

Thanks for the update! Keep waiting for the first flight.

Why are you posting this in the Cape Air, ESA, Tecnam thread?

Look like the Skylander.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUCmZhtWP6s


or the N219 Nurtanio...

What's old is new again. Looks a bit like a Do228.

The Textron Sky Courier made it’s first test flight on May 17th. Flew for two hours and 15 minutes.

Oh look, a TwinOtter !

I wonder what the deal is with the exhaust stacks pointing up on the left sides of both nacelles.

Garretts have a similar formula that counts cycles even when you don't shut down but you do idle. You have to add a fraction of a cycle for each takeoff and landing when you return to idle. I don't think it's as generous as the Pratt formula.

Source: Service Bulletin TPE331-A72-2130

You can afford to be generous when you charge $500K for an OH

The Shorts 360 is the same way, I think it has something to do with the prop slipstream and keeping the hot exhaust from going under the wing.

Jim, This pic complicates your question in that the LH inboard stack and RH inboard stack are angled differently. Possible noise abatement test?

Jeff