Part 23 re-write

[Hank]

Didn't realize that a flashlight was part of my TC, nor that it had to be an FAA-approved flashlight, rather than one from Walmart, Home Depot or Staples . . . Same for a fire extinguisher. Didn't think either was even required under Part 91. The last I heard, they were "recommending" flashlights based on number and size of batteries, ignoring the whole bulb and lumens issue, to say nothing if the superbright LED lights now available.

What other things that we don't care about will the FAA let us do anyway, with only minimal approval? Maybe they will let me change the color of my instrument panel, as long as I use a certified (or tested and approved) fire resistant paint . . .

[aviatoreb]

6 minutes ago, Hank said:

Didn't realize that a flashlight was part of my TC, nor that it had to be an FAA-approved flashlight, rather than one from Walmart, Home Depot or Staples . . . Same for a fire extinguisher. Didn't think either was even required under Part 91. The last I heard, they were "recommending" flashlights based on number and size of batteries, ignoring the whole bulb and lumens issue, to say nothing if the superbright LED lights now available.

What other things that we don't care about will the FAA let us do anyway, with only minimal approval? Maybe they will let me change the color of my instrument panel, as long as I use a certified (or tested and approved) fire resistant paint . . .

I wonder if the sunglasses I have been wearing can be approved under the new low risk performance based assessment system.

[Hank]

12 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I wonder if the sunglasses I have been wearing can be approved under the new low risk performance based assessment system.

Better get your clear lenses approved too, and test both frames while you're at it.

I have to wonder, what installed items will be approved through the rewrite? It seems like "NONE."

[cctsurf]

Having finally skimmed past the summary to the meat of the situation (which is FAR SHORTER than the summary).  One thing owners should note:

91.205.14  For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an approved shoulder harness or restraint system for each front seat. For small civil airplanes manufactured after December 12, 1986, an approved shoulder harness or restraint system for all seats. Shoulder harnesses installed at flightcrew stations must permit the flightcrew member, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operations.

I would highly recommend that people have shoulder harnesses, but do we all have them?

I especially like the part about being able to perform all functions necessary for flight operations with the shoulder harness fastened...  I guess that eliminates the non-inertial reel variety...

38 minutes ago, Hank said:

I have to wonder, what installed items will be approved through the rewrite? It seems like "NONE."

We might be able to mount our ipads permanently into the dash or something, but I see a lot of placarding coming up.

[carusoam]

The FAA has come a long way.

having an outdated chart in the cabin used to be against the rules.  Somebody there thought it was better to have no data than old data.

Narco used to produce radios that broadcast as much noise as they did signals.  Having a Narco radio meant that your portable GPS may not work when the radio was tuned to the wrong frequency.

using portable equipment to support the primary nav equipment was expected to be proof of pilots misbehaving.  What if somebody were to use their iPad as primary nav equipment?  If it worked nobody would notice.  If it doesn't work, you were warned in advance.

now iPads are legal for SItuational Awareness.  Somebody has built a temporary mount to attach it to the IP.

What has been missing all along is the focus on what is not allowed in the cabin instead of what needs to be in there.  More guidance, less rules...

The modern world may need another buss to keep the nonFAA approved electronics from interfering with the primary nav equipment.  

I know my mechanic / electronics guy is smart enough to keep up with the changes.

The FAA is going to be patrolling the line with a tablet in there hands.  Full of the rules and things that meet the rules.  They will use a cell phone to call the boss in the home office when they have questions.  They will be recording with video as well. 

Have you seen anything like this?  

There is always going to be some outliers.  Pilots with terribly uncared for planes.  America-King producing avionics with unapproved parts. Don't be like those guys...

Being FAA compliant will be the new way of being FAA approved.  There is a difference and it works pretty well with sport planes as it does in other industries.  Getting used to the more flexible system is going to take some effort.  It will be better than being stuck with old rules.

instead of having a TSO number on the front of the electronic box it will say FAA compliant by big G in a logo....

Best regards,

-a-

 

[M20C]

It really is a shame the Primary Non-commercial Category was not included in this rewrite. Color me jaded, but the HIRF and DO-178 software verification seem to have survived the new Part 23 "performance based standards"...  I would love to instal dual Dynon Skyviews in my M20C however, this proposal seems to do more to protect Aspen and Garmin than the owners of an aging GA fleet.

[jetdriven]

21 hours 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 think you're right. There is no meaningful change here. 

[FlyDave]

Maybe there is something we're not seeing in this bill. Could they possibly not be stating specifically how this will impact the existing fleet but we will see benefits from it?

Where is AOPA on this???

[mike20papa]

Speaking of NO meaningful change.. I have to say I bet the Aeromedical "rewrite" is a worse than before situation.  Now, just how many physicians, when asked to sign a form that states a patient is good to go as "pilot in command" are going to think , "Well, hum...maybe I need to call my attorney and then my insurance carrier, this a new one on me."  Let's face it, any of you in the professions - architecture, engineering, etc..we all know where this is going.  This is no solution at all.  Now, instead of a structured FAA medical that protects the process, we have a "hey Dr. Dude, can you sign me off, please?"  Our government at work for the tort lawyers, again.  And, I believe it was all a last minute rewrite, as usual.

[hindsight2020]

Nope, no primary non-commercial in there. Yep, right on schedule, this thing's DOA. Time to pack it up boys. I'm just gonna run out my Arrow and then sell it/salvage it/who cares. Then I'm getting on the ExAB bandwagon. Avionics upgrade and a more liberal approach to legally wrenching/modifying my airplane was sounding good, but in light of this blow to the hope of revitalizing the fleet, it's pretty clear these spam cans are going to the scrap yard.

At least they released it only 3 years late, so I can finally make an informed decision on the future direction of my avocational flying. For now, steam gauges, fat chance on a paint job expense now, expired IFR database and a tablet is it, and IRAN on the mechanicals. I'm done spending any more money on this boutique priced dead-end crap. The expense just turned gratuitous; it's just not fun anymore. As much as I hate the RV-cult and some of the Jupiter sized tools that make up that demographic, it looks like that's where my future lies. It was a nice thought while it lasted. Primary N-C was indeed too good to be true.

[NotarPilot]

On March 12, 2016 at 9:40 PM, hindsight2020 said:

Nope, no primary non-commercial in there. Yep, right on schedule, this thing's DOA. Time to pack it up boys. I'm just gonna run out my Arrow and then sell it/salvage it/who cares. Then I'm getting on the ExAB bandwagon. Avionics upgrade and a more liberal approach to legally wrenching/modifying my airplane was sounding good, but in light of this blow to the hope of revitalizing the fleet, it's pretty clear these spam cans are going to the scrap yard.

At least they released it only 3 years late, so I can finally make an informed decision on the future direction of my avocational flying. For now, steam gauges, fat chance on a paint job expense now, expired IFR database and a tablet is it, and IRAN on the mechanicals. I'm done spending any more money on this boutique priced dead-end crap. The expense just turned gratuitous; it's just not fun anymore. As much as I hate the RV-cult and some of the Jupiter sized tools that make up that demographic, it looks like that's where my future lies. It was a nice thought while it lasted. Primary N-C was indeed too good to be true.

I too was looking forward to the non-commercial category as well but knowing the FAA I didn't keep my hopes up. I had little faith it would happen. In the mean time I still love my Mooney. Going to upgrade the avionics in a couple weeks to Avidyne IFDs and get the L-3 Lynx NGT-9000. Hopefully a new paint just in a couple years too. She's still my baby and I still love flying. I'm never going to let the FAA dictate how I feel about flying. They don't get to win. I do.

[1964-M20E]

Well maybe if the right person get  in as president we can convince him to appoint one of us to the head of the FAA.  Even though I despise bureaucratic process I would jump at the opportunity.  A pilot, engineer and aircraft owner as the FAA chief I think some effective top down changes could be made at that point. 

[aviatoreb]

It's possible all is not bad.  What is written in the 23 rewrite looks as if they are saying here you go congress - we rewrote everything in a manner where we won't need to actually change anything - that is the likely outcome.  On the other hand, the words they are using say that they want to allow us to install more equipment and not block us.  Ok, if that is true, then it comes down to interpretation.  Will they interpret their old - or new - document in a manner that allows say a Dynon to make the paperwork necessary to install in a certified 4 seat piston.  An amsafe to inexpensively extend their STC to us, and so forth.  To allow reasonable and easy access to field approvals again - something they used to do but by practice instead of by regulation, essentially closed off as an opportunity entirely. Will the practice become more reasonable?  Likely no, but perhaps yes.

[Sabremech]

 Maybe I'll get to experience the new Performance Based approach for my upcoming cowling STC project.

 David

[cnoe]

This is positive news from Sun 'n Fun. Dynon announces STC for certificated aircraft. The existing EFIS-D10A lists at $2,200, and as more aircraft models are added to the STC (such as the M20 lineup) the news should only get better. How long will it be before the larger displays and AP components are approved? 2 years, 5 years, 10 years?

http://www.dynonavionics.com/D10A-STC/index.html

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[isaacpr7]

Hallelujah!!! Hopefully the Garmin G3X with autopilot will follow

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Brandontwalker]

Having finally skimmed past the summary to the meat of the situation (which is FAR SHORTER than the summary).  One thing owners should note:

91.205.14  For small civil airplanes manufactured after July 18, 1978, an approved shoulder harness or restraint system for each front seat. For small civil airplanes manufactured after December 12, 1986, an approved shoulder harness or restraint system for all seats. Shoulder harnesses installed at flightcrew stations must permit the flightcrew member, when seated and with the safety belt and shoulder harness fastened, to perform all functions necessary for flight operations.

I would highly recommend that people have shoulder harnesses, but do we all have them?

I especially like the part about being able to perform all functions necessary for flight operations with the shoulder harness fastened...  I guess that eliminates the non-inertial reel variety...

38 minutes ago, Hank said: I have to wonder, what installed items will be approved through the rewrite? It seems like "NONE."

We might be able to mount our ipads permanently into the dash or something, but I see a lot of placarding coming up.

I only have front shoulder harnesses in my 77 J. Do you know if any rear shoulder harnesses are available for this model?

[Guest]

18 hours ago, Brandontwalker said:

I only have front shoulder harnesses in my 77 J. Do you know if any rear shoulder harnesses are available for this model?

Brandon,

I installed rear belts in my last E model.  I made a bracket from 0.093" 4130 steel bent at 90 degrees.  One leg picked up on the 2 1/4" bolts where the roll structure attaches to the tail cone in the baggage compartment. The other leg had a 1/4-28 anchor nut for connecting the shoulder belt anchor.  It all fit behind the upholstery and only required a hole for the bolt to pass through.

Clarence

[Brandontwalker]

18 hours ago, Brandontwalker said: I only have front shoulder harnesses in my 77 J. Do you know if any rear shoulder harnesses are available for this model?

Brandon,

I installed rear belts in my last E model.  I made a bracket from 0.093" 4130 steel bent at 90 degrees.  One leg picked up on the 2 1/4" bolts where the roll structure attaches to the tail cone in the baggage compartment. The other leg had a 1/4-28 anchor nut for connecting the shoulder belt anchor.  It all fit behind the upholstery and only required a hole for the bolt to pass through.

Clarence

Very nice. Is my assumption correct that this is something you had to get field approval for?

[cctsurf]

I think on the 'j model, you might be able to follow the changes done on later versions of that model, using them for your approval.   I've seen discussion of it on a thread here on mooneyspace.  I think I remember that it required an additional hoop to the cage...but I can't remember.

I don't think you'd have the advantage of prior approval on the 'e model.

 

[1964-M20E]

From what I understand didn't the FAA classify installing shoulder harness as a minor modification to encourage owners to install them in their planes?

 

Working with your A&P it would be a simple log book sign off on the install.  Find the parts used on the later models and put them in in the same manner and you should be good to go.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brandontwalker]

I'm going to check it out as soon as I get my plane back from the avionics shop (whenever that may be)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk