Part 23 Reorganization

[FlyDave]

I just saw this on AvWeb:

 

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/GAMA-Pushing-FAA-on-Part-23-Rewrite222728-1.html

 

It looks like NBAA is trying to hold the FAA to task on this.

Personally, I found it offensive that the FAA refused to let the 2020 compliance date for ADS-B slip causing almost all of us to spend considerable amounts of money yet didn't think twice about letting their own deadline slip for a couple of years thereby delaying regulation changes that could help all of us comply by 2020 faster and cheaper (not to mention make our aircraft safer).

Note - this January, 2015 deadline is not the date to implement the changes - it's only to come up with guidelines for the new ruling parameters. We're still a ways out on the regulation changes.

[cliffy]

It's not going to make any difference. They won't make the deadline. It's just another "independent" Federal department that will do what it wants to do and Congress be damned. We'll all be too old to fly before this Pt 23 issue ever gets done. I'm taking 2 to 1 odds on that bet right now! 

Don't hold your breath on this one.

[N601RX]

Congress should just pass another law that states if the part 23 rewrite is not completed by Dec 15 then the faa would be immediately stripped of it regulatory authority for all non comercial aircraft and their funding would be cut in half. You would be suprised how quickly it got done.

[PaulB]

Congress should just pass another law that states if the part 23 rewrite is not completed by Dec 15 then the faa would be immediately stripped of it regulatory authority for all non comercial aircraft and their funding would be cut in half. You would be suprised how quickly it got done.

I think that would just end up screwing the little guy.  However, I do agree that FAA should be held accountable for this.  They're breaking the law if they don't submit the rewrite in time.  Maybe threatening some of the top administrators with jail time?

[aviatoreb]

I think that would just end up screwing the little guy.  However, I do agree that FAA should be held accountable for this.  They're breaking the law if they don't submit the rewrite in time.  Maybe threatening some of the top administrators with jail time?

 

I don't think jail time would be necessary.  Just replace the leadership of this project and probably the administrator too, and then the job would get done.  If congress demands a change and the agency ignores wantonly, then that seems to be the way to proceed.

[triple8s]

I respectfully disagree that the FAA should be stripped if it doesn't meet it's deadline for one reason, if it were to be stripped I am very sure the Executive branch would break out "The Pen & The Phone", create a New authority answerable to the all powerful and mighty Wiz, and we the greedy rich that own our own planes would go the route of the coal companies and get our genitals taxed off. No I think doing nothing is MUCH better than anything this bunch would have in store for us.

[cliffy]

We all forget- Congress doesn't appoint, they only approve funding and "appointed" people. "The Great Wiz" appoints and unless "The Great Wiz" wants it, it won't be done! 

Like I said, don't hold your breath 'cause it ain't gonna happen!

[1964-M20E]

Or those who fly under part 91 could just break away and do what is logical and right.  If enough simply decided to go their own way in the grand scheme of things the FAA could do little about it and would have to accept it.  We know some things already go on and there is no backlash.  Gandhi showed us that simple, peaceful refusal to do something or action can lead to big changes.

 

At the end of the day it is my plane now it might be hard to sell if I for instance put in a complete Dynon skyview panel in my plane but it would sure be nice and would be a hell of a lot cheaper and most likely safer than anything "certified"

[cliffy]

Ya all be careful out there with "non-approved" installs.

I know of 1 aircraft owner facing over 200 violations right now (every flight is a separate violation) for hard mounting a non-structural bar in his airplane and mounting a Garmin 696 to it with screws (hard mounted) with no legal paperwork to show compliance with 43.13 or STCs or anything. 

All it takes is walk around by the Feds as our poster here will verify (Now my airplane is junk!).

[chrisk]

Or those who fly under part 91 could just break away and do what is logical and right.  If enough simply decided to go their own way in the grand scheme of things the FAA could do little about it and would have to accept it.  We know some things already go on and there is no backlash.  Gandhi showed us that simple, peaceful refusal to do something or action can lead to big changes.

 

At the end of the day it is my plane now it might be hard to sell if I for instance put in a complete Dynon skyview panel in my plane but it would sure be nice and would be a hell of a lot cheaper and most likely safer than anything "certified"

 

Civil disobedience only works if your convictions are strong enough. You have to be willing to pay the fines, or go to jail.  I don't fit that category when it comes to my airplane.

[chrisk]

Understand the most of recent FAA appointees for director or chief of staff have either no practical aviation experience at all ... or a very slanted biased experience, (e.g. working for a news agency, but married to someone having the right political contacts) We are talking at least a decade or two of token appointees. They have limited true, aviation experience in leadership at the top. They don't know what they are doing ... in other words. The previous directors got arrested for drunk driving and resigned ... or were appointed primarily due to their political affiliation and/or gender. It's a wonder the FAA is not in worse shape than it is!

Just a thought. If my military training serves me well: the correct way to handle it - is to call the FAA in and ask them in exact terms what is their timeline for compliance and what assets have they dedicated to this? Ask them then, what assets they require? Ask them what "help" they require? Then give them what they really need (not necessarily what they say they need) and absolutely hold their feet to the fire. (Giving them what they really need to get the job done requires you to already know what they need by having some expertise, knowledge or a obtaining study in advance by someone who knows)

As a military officer, they teach us to write the order, give the order, set the definition of mission accomplishment, give any specific stipulations for execution of the mission, and clearly state the commander's intent. That includes a time requirement. Those conducting the mission can "back-plan" events to meet the mission completion time.

The military taught us: Give the line officers and non-commissioned officers the people time and materials to accomplish the mission. Then stay out of their way, don't micro-manage, but ... Trust but verify.

They're just a little unorganized, have inexperienced (and quite frankly ignorant) leaders ... Many carry the authority without the knowledge ... And in general they may just need a little help (read kick in the pants) and further guidance (read accountability) at the top. This is not to say there are not experienced and competent inspectors and other workers at lower levels.

 

The approach suggested works well in the private world.  I suspect there are multiple problems when applying this to the FAA:

• Congress doesn't really care, so they will not make the investment to force the appointees to do their jobs.   
• The appointees know they are safe and are not likely to be fired for anything short of political embarrassment.  (Drunk Driving, Child Molesting, etc)
• The appointees are political creatures who will find an excuse, like lack of budget to get the job done.   --Well it was a bigger job than we thought.....
• And is probably difficult to fire a civil servant, so it can be really hard to "kick them in the pants". 

[Mooneymite]

Or those who fly under part 91 could just break away and do what is logical and right.  

 

Or, just go the "Experimental" route...

 

This is why there are so many pilots leaving the certificated world.

[1964-M20E]

Or, just go the "Experimental" route...

 

This is why there are so many pilots leaving the certificated world.

Seriously considering this route over the next few years.