Jump to content

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


Mooneymite

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, teejayevans said:

Can you fly IFR with only experimental avionics? 

"As you see fit "?  I personally would have a problem with that.  

In many cases it's the exact same part. You pay more for the certification  the G5 is a great example Idential units but the certified is $2K vs $1K for non I'd save the extra grand   

thr

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 1964-M20E said:

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.

 

 

But they are all modern designs, 50 year old planes are always going to be cheaper, they are OLD, especially for 30-40 somethings. Unless they become classics like a 66 Mustang or 63 Corvette, you can't assume they're value will go up. Maybe if you modernize the panel, cowl...but I just don't see value going up on its own.  

Question about experimentals....how is the max gross weight determined, if they even have that limitation?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, teejayevans said:

But they are all modern designs, 50 year old planes are always going to be cheaper, they are OLD, especially for 30-40 somethings. Unless they become classics like a 66 Mustang or 63 Corvette, you can't assume they're value will go up. Maybe if you modernize the panel, cowl...but I just don't see value going up on its own.  

Question about experimentals....how is the max gross weight determined, if they even have that limitation?

 

I don't see a $30K C model changing much in value. But for $100K'ish Mooneys I could see there being more market interest if the maintenance cost were reduced. 

 

However, personally, I think what would really improve the cost of flying is a limited GA A&P program. You could have an A&P cert with limitations that could be achieved in under a year with a part time student program.. No overhauls but you could change a mag. No major modifications but you could most common maintenance, etc. Annuals would just be an IA writing up what needs to be fixed and then you could sign off the repairs yourself. Could even require type certification (i.e. Mooneys only, Cessna only, etc).

-Robert

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, teejayevans said:

Question about experimentals....how is the max gross weight determined, if they even have that limitation?

That is a very good question and it exposes the dark side of experimental.  Since you are the builder and you don't have to "prove" anything to the FAA, you can kill yourself completely legally.

There was a really hot thread on the Vans board about a builder who just decided to raise the gross weight of his RV-10 (as I recall) to accommodate all the stuff he'd added to the plane.  Van himself entered into the fray and said he never designed the aircraft to those limits and the guy was an idiot (or words to that effect). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, teejayevans said:

Giving owners more latitude in maintenance might become more of a necessity, in my limited experience there seems to be a lack of youth in A&P shops.

I swing by the A&P school at times to borrow tools, etc. There are certainly lots of younger folks there but I don't see them turning up in the shops either. It may be that working on GA planes doesn't pay the bills and they end up in the jet jock shops. More reason for a GA A&P program. 

 

-Robert

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, geoffb said:

So the whole idea of a Private Non-Commercial category that was proposed is now dead?

There never was such an official proposal. Only web forums from people like us. There never was to be any new categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DaV8or said:

There never was such an official proposal. Only web forums from people like us. There never was to be any new categories.

What I've been told is that the A&Ps have been against a lesser certificate as it could result in competition for them. Not sure if that's just pessimism though. 

-Robert 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will complain again - with a new scary incident fresh in my mind.

On Friday night I crashed our car driving my son home from Cornell.   60mph and loss of control bang into the jersey barrier. Don't worry about the details - and I thought I was better enough than that since I have not crashed anything since I was 17.  Knock on wood.

Good seat belts and airbags deployed, and all I have is a sore neck and chest from the seatbelt itself catching me so hard.  And my son is fine.  Thank goodness for modern technology.  I am big on airbags today.

Ok back to the FAA.  Tell me again why I am not allowed STILL to install the airbag seatbelts into my M20K?  The technology exists and it is already engineered - only FAA paper work restrictions are in the way.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/17/2016 at 10:10 AM, PTK said:

This is probably the most relevant statement for current owners:

"With respect to the existing fleet, the FAA does not expect the revisions to part 23 to provide immediate benefits to older airplanes. However, when an owner of an older airplane applies for a change to the airplane’s TC in accordance with §21.101, the applicant may choose to use the more flexible performance-based standards. In addition, as discussed later, the revision to § 21.9 will enable expedited approval of certain parts that will benefit the existing fleet."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

This is probably the most relevant statement for current owners:

"With respect to the existing fleet, the FAA does not expect the revisions to part 23 to provide immediate benefits to older airplanes. However, when an owner of an older airplane applies for a change to the airplane’s TC in accordance with §21.101, the applicant may choose to use the more flexible performance-based standards. In addition, as discussed later, the revision to § 21.9 will enable expedited approval of certain parts that will benefit the existing fleet."

Yea that's huge for us. Because most of the expensive stuff we do affects the TC. I'm hoping that results in less expensive cockpit goodies. 

-Robert

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, when an owner of an older airplane applies for a change to the airplane’s TC in accordance with §21.101, the applicant may choose to use the more flexible performance-based standards.


So... do you think this means I'll have a better chance of slipping a G3X + integrated autopilot past the FSDO? I should be able to say "works fine in an RV-10" and walk out with the approval, right?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/16/2016 at 3:37 PM, RobertGary1 said:

However, personally, I think what would really improve the cost of flying is a limited GA A&P program. You could have an A&P cert with limitations that could be achieved in under a year with a part time student program.. No overhauls but you could change a mag. No major modifications but you could most common maintenance, etc. Annuals would just be an IA writing up what needs to be fixed and then you could sign off the repairs yourself. Could even require type certification (i.e. Mooneys only, Cessna only, etc).

-Robert

I like this.  What is funny is you get an PPL and suddenly you know how to change the oil without killing yourself.  I would be interested to know how many young PPLs have ever changed their oil on their cars.   Then the other side of computerized cockpits.  How many old A&P know about computers and such

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mooniac15u has hit the nail on the head! And, nothing will happen immediately, in fact there is an 8 month waiting period from now so the FAA can get trained. 

But, if and when someone (manufacturer) wants to "modify" a certified airplane with newer uncertified electronics they will be able to use the provisions of the "rewrite" and use certification methods many time less expensive the the current way. It will still be an STC (if I read things correctly) but do it in a much cheaper way to be "certified" for use in certified airplanes. We won't be able to just install the noncertified stuff. It would still need to be certified, old way or new way.

How many of us think Garmin will want to "certify" their cheaper experimental electronics for our older airplanes?

Specifically speaking toward autopilots, the new NORSEE regs seem to be the most applicable way to get better, safer APs in our old airplanes. Trio and Truetrac are working on it hot and heavy. Their APs are so much better than the old ones. Like ability might be extended to any manufacturer that wanted to certify a glass panel of some sort through NORSEE (G3, ya right). I would surmise that the 3 primary gauges would remain (just like Cirrus has as back up) then the "glass" might qualify as a NORSEE install as being not really required for flight (if the other 3 gauges were retained). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, cnoe said:

 


So... do you think this means I'll have a better chance of slipping a G3X + integrated autopilot past the FSDO? I should be able to say "works fine in an RV-10" and walk out with the approval, right?




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think this was probably about as much as we could've hoped for.  They were never going to let us install whatever we want without some approval basis.  As long as the STC process gets cheaper and easier I think we should count it as a win.  I think a G3X is absolutely the kind of thing that will be within reach assuming that Garmin gets on board.  I doubt the FAA will approve any STCs without manufacturer participation.  Lowering the barrier to entry should also improve competition.  If Garmin doesn't want to get the G3X approved then the new rules make it a lot easier for someone else to offer a comparable product.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
On 12/15/2016 at 2:20 PM, Mooneymite said:

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.

That turned out to be a joke!

I'm about to the point of writing a letter. Our planes could be made safer and they continue to stand in the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure I agree.  While it's true the Part 23 rewrite has been glacially slow, take a second to think of the changes we've seen since 2016.

While the complete rewrite might be beneficial to some of us, the real crux of the matter is getting better equipment available for installation, quicker.  4 years ago we had barely seen the advent of the Dynon D10, now we have an incredible array of products all designed so that we can ditch the one system that is least reliable and most problematic- vacuum.  Four years ago, to install an HSI, it was close to $10k.  A G5 today costs $3k and your local A&P can install it.  The cheapest autopilot was $20k.  Now it's about $5k, and can probably be installed by your local A&P.  Dual Aspens? Easy.  Electronic ignition? Two STCed models are available right now.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think the best thing for owners would be if the faa allowed a private a&p ticket that would allow you to work on your own plane. It would be condensed, not covering jet engines, pressurization systems, overhaul of engines, etc. Just allow an owner to change a mag or starter, change out a fuel sender or fuel pump, etc in exchange for taking a shorter class than 2 years of full time study. 

 

-Robert 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.