Part 23 re-write

[Mooneymite]

From AIN:

 

FAA Releases Long-Awaited Part 23 Proposal

The FAA today released the long-awaited proposed rewrite of Part 23, governing certification of small aircraft. To be published in the March 14 Federal Register, the proposal is based on recommendations of a multi-national industry/government rulemaking committee that established a goal of doubling safety while cutting the costs of certification in half.

The proposal is designed to reduce the time it takes to bring new safety technologies to market by taking a more performance-based approach to Part 23 certification, rather than a prescriptive approach. It also enables standards for new technologies that are established by an international standards committee.

As written, the proposal would replace current weight- and propulsion-derived divisions in Part 23 with performance- and risk-based divisions for airplanes that seat up to 19 passengers and have a maximum takeoff weight of 19,000 pounds or less. It further calls for airworthiness standards to address certification for flight-in-known-icing conditions, enhanced stall characteristics and minimum control speed to prevent loss ofcontrolin multiengine airplanes. The FAA, noting that the rewrite is one of the largest in the agency’s history, released a video of the highlights of the proposal.

“This proposal would streamline how we approve new technologies for small piston-powered airplanes all the way to complex high-performance executive jets,” said FAA Administrator Michael Huerta.

“This proposal would improve safety, reduce costs, and leverage innovation to ensure the highest level of safety is designed and built into small airplanes,” added Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in announcing the proposal. “General aviation is vital to the U.S. economy, and this proposal would benefit manufacturers, pilots and the general aviation community as a whole.”

The General Aviation Manufacturers Association, which has long pushed for Part 23 reform, praised the proposal, though it comes a few months after the congressionally mandated deadline for the final rule. “This proposal is the result of nearly a decade of work by the entire aviation community and…will help improve general aviation safety and bolster the piston, turboprop and light jet market, as well as remove barriers to certification for new technologies such as electric and hybrid propulsion,” said GAMA president and CEO Pete Bunce.

The FAA is providing 60 days for comment from the date of publication. Bunce urged industry stakeholders to “respond quickly with meaningful comment and for the FAA to engage with other global aviation authorities, so a well harmonized and effective final rule can be issued by the current Administration. If they do so, the FAA, through its leadership, can put in place a lasting legacy that will benefit general aviation safety and the vitality of the general aviation industry for decades to come.”

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/business-aviation/2016-03-09/faa-releases-long-awaited-part-23-proposal

[Cruiser]

Leadership ? they are only two years late on issuing this

[Mooneymite]

Yes, but don't be late in installing your ADS-B!

 

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Mooneymite said:

Yes, but don't be late in installing your ADS-B!

 

I read yesterday that the air force announced that they expect to be late to install adsb across their fleet.  I think the FAA should throw the boot on the air force noncompliant airplanes.

[cnoe]

Hopefully this will soon mean that I can install a nice new RV-proven autopilot or a Garmin G3X PFD for a reasonable cost. Hoo-frickety-ray I say!

If it happens.

[NotarPilot]

Just now, cnoe said:

Hopefully this will soon mean that I can install a nice new RV-proven autopilot or a Garmin G3X PFD for a reasonable cost. Hoo-frickety-ray I say!

If it happens.

Not so fast. There doesn't seem to be any mention of the non-commercial normal category that was mentioned before. 

 

Any lawyers in the house here to help translate this stuff?

[cnoe]

What good is it if us GA guys can't add/upgrade our planes to enhance safety and or functionality? They need to follow the path started with backup AI and AOA indicators.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[KSMooniac]

I'm slogging through it right now (work related). Hopefully there is some good news for old planes in there somewhere...

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Sabremech]

I made it to page 62 and was nodding off. 

[carusoam]

The significant part I was getting is the change to risk based analysis?

When used properly, it could allow for using something like airbag seat belts in a Mid body Mooney based on qualified knowledge of the same parts in Long Body Mooneys...

Similar logic has been used by the FDA in that type of business...

The old rules just don't allow for logic to trump 1,000s of hours and MMs of $ being spent on obvious tried and true solutions...

Best regards,

-a-

[NotarPilot]

Nothing of what I saw looked that exciting for me. Maybe it'll benefit OEMs.

[kris_adams]

I still have my hopes up but couldn't make it through 250+ pages.

[OR75]

You look at the ARC participants ...  And you know what the results will be.

i don't trust AOPA in doing the right thing for pilots and aircraft owners 

EAA already have it good . 

[Jeff_S]

I made it through half of the video, and while it was full of great footage of airplanes in flight, and quotes by well-known people, I really couldn't understand much of it. What is "performance based evaluation" for example? The video was a good marketing piece that said basically, we want to make it easier to bring innovation to the market. Great...all for it. But I didn't get a good sense of just HOW that's going to happen.

 

 

[1964-M20E]

I did not read the paper.  However, my gut feeling, given the FAA wrote it, it that this might be good for folks like Cessna, Piper and Mooney but for those of us who have planes probably not much.

I have said this before but my idea of a good addition to this would be any person operating under part 91 for private use can follow the same rules as the experimental folks.  After all at the end of the day the experiential folks fly in the same airspace as you and me and the big iron.

[N601RX]

I skimmed through all of it last night and didn't see any thing about a new certified non commercial category.

[Sabremech]

On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 7:21 AM, N601RX said:

I skimmed through all of it last night and didn't see any thing about a new certified non commercial category.

I saw the same thing. Looks like it's just the manufacturers who are possibly helped by this and we'll still need a certification to install a product in our certified aircraft. Time will tell if it helps.

[OR75]

It looks like the FAA is going make GA great again

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Sabremech said:

I saw the same thing. Looks like it's just the manufacturers who are possibly helped by this and we'll still need a certification to install a product in our certified aircraft. Time will tell if it helps.

Its hard to tell without being a lawyer I guess.  They could well make for a much easier and sensible "performance based" field approval process.  I want to put a Garmin G3X - and its autopilot - and envelope protection and the whole schtick.  Performance based argument suggests the darned system works so let me have it and give me a field approval.  :-)

...and airbag seatbelts.  Performance based evidence suggests it works well in late number M20Ks and upped so it MIGHT work ok in earlier model M20Ks so give me a field approval.  So I'm happy - the industry is happy because they are selling me stuff, and the FAA is happy because I am keeping their employees busy with field approvals.

And I want gami prism please.

[Sabremech]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

Its hard to tell without being a lawyer I guess.  They could well make for a much easier and sensible "performance based" field approval process.  I want to put a Garmin G3X - and its autopilot - and envelope protection and the whole schtick.  Performance based argument suggests the darned system works so let me have it and give me a field approval.  :-)

...and airbag seatbelts.  Performance based evidence suggests it works well in late number M20Ks and upped so it MIGHT work ok in earlier model M20Ks so give me a field approval.  So I'm happy - the industry is happy because they are selling me stuff, and the FAA is happy because I am keeping their employees busy with field approvals.

And I want gami prism please.

"Performance based"? Nice terminology but what does it really mean? I want to see some examples of what it accomplishes and how instead of a catchy phrase to say we're doing it different but the end result will be no different than in the past. 

[cctsurf]

"performance based" is related to the "sport" airplane standards.  I'm guessing ASTM standards like those that the sport planes are required to meet.  Instead of having to prove to the FAA that the device is compliant, the manufacturer certifies it as compliant.  Has anyone run into modifications to sport planes?  As far as I understand, they can't be modified with out manufacturer approval because that takes them out of the manufacturer's specifications and approved standards.  I hear that ADS-B compliance requires testing and approval from the Manufacturer as well...  I hope they don't go out of business on owners.

I'd love a G3X or similar, electronic ignition and injection system in my M20C, I was hoping that this rewrite was going to make that possible...  I've been reading everything I can get my eyes on to understand it, (including the document itself), and it doesn't seem that will happen.

Disappointed,

James

[aviatoreb]

12 minutes ago, cctsurf said:

I'd love a G3X or similar, electronic ignition and injection system in my M20C, I was hoping that this rewrite was going to make that possible...  I've been reading everything I can get my eyes on to understand it, (including the document itself), and it doesn't seem that will happen.

Disappointed,

What do you see in there that makes it seem like it won't help us get the G3x and so forth?

I have no idea....just asking.

[aviatoreb]

37 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

"Performance based"? Nice terminology but what does it really mean? I want to see some examples of what it accomplishes and how instead of a catchy phrase to say we're doing it different but the end result will be no different than in the past. 

I know....I was quoting because I am "dubious".

[cctsurf]

9 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

What do you see in there that makes it seem like it won't help us get the G3x and so forth?

I have no idea....just asking.

The focus seems to be entirely on new aircraft, we may get thrown a bone or two here and there, and this may bring the price of new aircraft with more modern technology to a more human level, but I don't see a lot there for us as owners of part 23 or car 3 aircraft.

In section III.c, (which speaks to benefits to the existing fleet), their main concentration is the installation of low-risk equipment with a side note about ease of the requirements for STC or an amended TC.  Their modifications to the FARs may lessen the prices slightly, but I'm not optimistic.

They speak to the "low-risk" equipment as off the shelf items.  "Examples of such articles include carbon monoxide detectors, weather display systems, clocks, small hand-held fire extinguishers, and flashlights."  Woo Hoo...  Who doesn't have an ipad or equivalent in their aircraft at this point?  They go on to say that modification parts will be required to be manufactured under faa approval on a case-by-case basis.  Yet that same item, because it is produced under the new 21.9.7.b approval cannot represent it as airworthy... what they give with one hand, they take away with the other.

'course, I'm given to mistrust the FAA, what they get wrong by incompetence is only outdone by what they get wrong by malice.

 

[cctsurf]

The stuff I want replaced is "High Risk."  I would love to see the modernization of our ancient private fleet with ignitions, injection systems, instruments, lighting, etc.  None of these could ever fit under the FAA's definition of "low risk."  Things that are "low risk" will also be low help.

Who needs to "install" a flashlight in their aircraft?  I'm assuming by its association with fire extinguishers that they must be saying that we shouldn't be semi-permanently attaching these things to our aircraft at this point?