FAA’s Part 23 Rewrite Ready for Release (from AIN)

[Mooneymite]

FAA’s Part 23 Rewrite Ready for Release

The U.S. FAA is expected to imminently release the long-awaited rewrite of small airplane certification regulations. The Office of Management and Budget on December 9 completed its review of the comprehensive rewrite of Part 23 regulations, marking the final step before its release. The FAA has scheduled a briefing at the U.S. Department of Transportation headquarters tomorrow on the new Part 23 rule, the agency confirmed. General Aviation Manufacturers Association chairman and Piper Aircraft CEO Simon Caldecott will join FAA Administrator Michael Huerta at tomorrow's briefing. Also participating are Hartzell Propeller president Joe Brown and Brad Mottier, the v-p and general manager of business and general aviation and integrated systems at GE. The new Part 23 rule is anticipated to be one of the most significant rewrites of certification requirements in decades, shifting the direction of the agency to a performance-based approach that incorporates international government/industry consensus standards for new aircraft and aircraft products. Huerta in September had announced the rule was in “executive review” and noted that the agency had made only incremental improvements to certification requirements over the years. “It became obvious that we needed to overhaul our approach to certifying aircraft if we wanted to improve safety and to help products get to market faster,” he said.

[Oscar Avalle]

Any details?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

Can I install the Garmin G3x and autopilot?

[DaV8or]

From what I've read of it so far, it offers little change for those of us with existing certified aircraft. The only improvements are likely to be easier STCs or use of logbook entries for cockpit informational systems, not primary systems. So things like AoA indicators, traffic systems, onboard weather systems and back up instruments may be cheaper to buy and install. Airframe and power plant modifications will likely be the same as now. So will primary instrumentation, navigation and communication systems. Don't expect much change there.

For those that buy brand new airplanes, there may be some relief there. New designs should in theory make it to market faster and a little cheaper due to easier certification. Kind of like the 3rd class medical reform, in the end it's good for a few but for most it's same ol' same ol'.

Please somebody tell me I'm wrong! I want to be wrong about this!

[ArtVandelay]

Well, if I keep the basic steam gauges, then maybe we could install G3X for informational purposes only 

[aviatoreb]

4 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

Well, if I keep the basic steam gauges, then maybe we could install G3X for informational purposes only 

I would be willing to do that too...  

[mooniac15u]

1 hour ago, DaV8or said:

From what I've read of it so far, it offers little change for those of us with existing certified aircraft. The only improvements are likely to be easier STCs or use of logbook entries for cockpit informational systems, not primary systems. So things like AoA indicators, traffic systems, onboard weather systems and back up instruments may be cheaper to buy and install. Airframe and power plant modifications will likely be the same as now. So will primary instrumentation, navigation and communication systems. Don't expect much change there.

For those that buy brand new airplanes, there may be some relief there. New designs should in theory make it to market faster and a little cheaper due to easier certification. Kind of like the 3rd class medical reform, in the end it's good for a few but for most it's same ol' same ol'.

Please somebody tell me I'm wrong! I want to be wrong about this!

The FAA has already approved the Dynon D10A and the Garmin G5 as primary instruments without making them go through the traditional certification process.  A year ago you wouldn't have been able to convince anyone on MS that was going to happen.  ISTM that the FAA has already demonstrated they are willing to embrace a new approach.

[1964-M20E]

small steps but maybe good.

 

If I were in charge small aircraft for personal use could follow the same rules as experimental aircraft.  my 0.02

 

[Hank]

1 hour ago, 1964-M20E said:

 

If I were in charge small aircraft for personal use could follow the same rules as experimental aircraft.  my 0.02

 

So have you applied to be in charge yet???

[aviatoreb]

2 minutes ago, Hank said:

So have you applied to be in charge yet???

He has the wrong qualifications.  He likes airplanes.

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, 1964-M20E said:

small steps but maybe good.

 

If I were in charge small aircraft for personal use could follow the same rules as experimental aircraft.  my 0.02

 

There should be an antique category - like cars - anything over 30 years has lived out its certified category and can choose to remain certified or go antique which may follow the same rules as experimental.

[Hank]

Just now, aviatoreb said:

He has the wrong qualifications.  He likes airplanes.

Let the swamp draining begin!!

[1964-M20E]

Working on my resume 

 

 

[DaV8or]

26 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

He has the wrong qualifications.  He likes airplanes.

Not only that, but he actually knows something about them. He is screwed on two accounts.

[DaV8or]

26 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

There should be an antique category - like cars - anything over 30 years has lived out its certified category and can choose to remain certified or go antique which may follow the same rules as experimental.

I have proposed this for years on pilot forums. I am constantly reminded as to why it is either impossible, or a really bad idea. I personally still champion the idea.

[aviatoreb]

39 minutes ago, DaV8or said:

I have proposed this for years on pilot forums. I am constantly reminded as to why it is either impossible, or a really bad idea. I personally still champion the idea.

...its a good idea.  I don't claim to have it first.  I only claim to be smart enough to recognize a good idea when I hear it.

[KSMooniac]

I agree as well. I love the idea of a non-commercial category for certified planes that allows more owner maintenance and mods, so long as the planes aren't used commercially. It would be like today's experimental planes.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[ArtVandelay]

What happens to your resale value when you change you plane's classification?

[Mooneymite]

4 hours ago, teejayevans said:

What happens to your resale value when you change you plane's classification?

Well maintained planes will always sell at a premium regardless of how they are certified.  Take a look at Vans aircraft re-sales.

[aviatoreb]

48 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

Well maintained planes will always sell at a premium regardless of how they are certified.  Take a look at Vans aircraft re-sales.

I agree.

Suppose you saw my airplane chocked full of the best of best in experimental avionics and allowing rules to have you maintain as economically and as reasonably as you see fit, plus the written evidence that it has been already so maintained?

I would move my airplane to an "antique" category if I could, if rules were as I was dreaming, and then I would continue to have it maintained by real experts since I am personally quite unqualified.  But then the materials used, their cost, and choices would go up dramatically and the airplane would improve for it.  And it would all be documented.

That said - airplanes are a big time money sink.  So if there is a loss in resale value, then that is just a small piece of the puzzle.  I am sure I would more than make up for that in reduced operating costs.

Edited December 16, 2016 by aviatoreb

[Andy95W]

I've been through two iterations of rule clarifications and rewrites meant to streamline the STC and Field Approval process to allow local FSDOs a greater ability to approve modifications. 

The net result both times was to slow the process even more and make local inspectors even less likely to grant approval due to a perceived notion that the system was more complicated.

I am hopefully optimistic about this rewrite, but I'm definitely not holding my breath.

[ArtVandelay]

1 hour ago, aviatoreb said:

I agree.

Suppose you saw my airplane chocked full of the best of best in experimental avionics and allowing rules to have you maintain as economically and as reasonably as you see fit, plus the written evidence that it has been already so maintained?

Can you fly IFR with only experimental avionics? 

"As you see fit "?  I personally would have a problem with that.  I would never buy an experimental. It's one thing to allow someone to add experimental avionics in addition to some certified, or replace incandescent lights with LEDs, and another to allow owner to do whatever they want. I hope they find a gray area between certified and experimental.

[M20kflyer99]

39 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

Can you fly IFR with only experimental avionics? 

"As you see fit "?  I personally would have a problem with that.  I would never buy an experimental. It's one thing to allow someone to add experimental avionics in addition to some certified, or replace incandescent lights with LEDs, and another to allow owner to do whatever they want. I hope they find a gray area between certified and experimental.

Any exprmental still needs a certified and approved GPS feeding the fancy avionics.    Not sure about needing certified nav unit for radio nav. 

[1964-M20E]

The value of our planes would go up IMHO.  Just about any 4 seat single in the experimental market sells for more that most of our planes do especially if it is a retract.

The biggest reason I have not gone experimental besides cost and time to build is most of the experimental aircraft out there only have 2 seats.

 

 

[Mooneymite]

I have a foot in both the certified and experimental camp.  Believe me, if we could use the experimental criteria for maintenance, I would jump at the chance!!!

I would be interested in any statistics on certified vs experimental maintenance induced incidents/accidents.  Most of the experimental aircraft I'm familiar with are meticulously maintained; just not to "certified standards" as far as parts and the requirement for an IA to sign it off each year.