FAA wants to Phase out DERs?

[hammdo]

https://avbrief.com/faa-wants-to-phase-out-ders

 

-Don

[N201MKTurbo]

This kind of sucks. It kind of says that nothing can be done unless it is done by an aircraft manufacturer. It kind of screws anybody who isn't building new airplanes. We don't have to worry about any new STCs, there won't be any. I mean the likes of Garmin will still be able to pull it off. But a small operation is screwed.

[hammdo]

Opinion on this:

https://avbrief.com/when-efficiency-gets-in-the-way-of-effectiveness

[PeteMc]

I really don't know a lot about DERs and ODAs.  But after reading the article, are they really getting rid of the services or just taking the Freelance/Subcontractor DERs and combining them one single group where they'll all be ODAs? 

I see that ODAs usually delt with large companies like Boeing.  But I did not see in the article where it said the FAA would no longer be doing the work the DERs were doing.  Did I miss it or was it stated somewhere else that the oversight from the DERs is just going away with this merger? 

And as a former Freelancer and Sub-Contractor...  It's a great gig and you make a lot more than an employee would make, but it is usually project to project with dead time in between from that client.  More than once I had a client grow to the point that they were constantly calling or just booking me for a new project that was starting as soon as the current one ended.  Eventually someone would realize they should have a staff doing either what I was doing or what the people I was bringing in were doing.   So is this elimination of the Freelance DERs any different?  (I have no clue, just asking the question.) 

 

[1980Mooney]

46 minutes ago, PeteMc said:

I really don't know a lot about DERs and ODAs.  But after reading the article, are they really getting rid of the services or just taking the Freelance/Subcontractor DERs and combining them one single group where they'll all be ODAs? 

I see that ODAs usually delt with large companies like Boeing.  But I did not see in the article where it said the FAA would no longer be doing the work the DERs were doing.  Did I miss it or was it stated somewhere else that the oversight from the DERs is just going away with this merger? 

And as a former Freelancer and Sub-Contractor...  It's a great gig and you make a lot more than an employee would make, but it is usually project to project with dead time in between from that client.  More than once I had a client grow to the point that they were constantly calling or just booking me for a new project that was starting as soon as the current one ended.  Eventually someone would realize they should have a staff doing either what I was doing or what the people I was bringing in were doing.   So is this elimination of the Freelance DERs any different?  (I have no clue, just asking the question.) 

" More than once I had a client grow to the point that they were constantly calling or just booking me for a new project that was starting as soon as the current one ended.  Eventually someone would realize they should have a staff doing either what I was doing or what the people I was bringing in were doing."

The second article states that there are thousands of DER's which are currently managed by the FAA.   Organization Delegate of Authorities (ODAs)program is a means by which the FAA grants designee authority to organizations or companies. DER's typically worked for small companies, startups and individuals.  There are hundreds of posts on Mooneyspace about "go hire a DER" - for wing structural repairs, recently on the 40:1 gears, etc.  DER's handled the one off and unicorn engineering review. No DER's means NO small projects.

ODA's are authorities within "qualified organizations" - think Boeing, Garmin, Cirrus. Textron, Piper, maybe Hartzell, Continental, etc - that have someone on their staff that handle their company internal projects for/on behalf of the FAA. In the future the only STC's you will see will be coming from the OEM's.

No DER's means no small and non-company sponsored engineering support - period.

Getting rid of DER's gets rid of a lot of oversight cost for the FAA. And the mantra is to reduce cost and increase efficiency at the FAA.  Small General Aviation, old General Aviation - the world we live in - is inherently inefficient.  The Mooney fleet becomes more and more bespoke every day with every modification.  The FAA and the Government does not want to support the time and effort to deal with individual owners with unique problems like repairing wing spar corrosion.  

And I think it naive to believe that it will end there.  Supporting small GA in the air (as well as on the ground)  is also inherently "inefficient".  Managing a GA plane in crowded airspace requires basically the same resources as a commercial plane - it is just slower and can be prioritized lower.  I think the subject of ATC User Fees will come back into the picture.  Just wait - the "ATC Modernization" cost will horribly overrun estimates, and the knee jerk reaction will be to kill something else in the FAA universe like free support for GA.

Historically, everyone said "look at the benefit that GA brings to communities".  That benefit vs cost will not play in the future.  Communities (i.e. the vast majority of taxpayers), increasingly with city/county tax shortfalls, don't buy it.  The young punks at DOGE didn't buy it - I bet they were thinking "why do we need to provide funds for all these little airports for all these ancient small planes".  The push for "efficiency" will steamroll past support relationships, statements and "promises".

When pilots/owners hear that the current Administration supports General Aviation, I think both groups are talking past each other.  Cirrus, with its "only Millionaires need apply" marketing strategy (i.e. "Next" program to "move you up to a jet"..) will do just fine in the future environment.  There will be no STC's, no tweaks, other than what Cirrus wants.  Besides, Cirrus owners don't want to get their hands dirty.  Jet owners will do just fine.  Air taxis for the wealthy in Miami will get support.  For the majority of small GA, it will be make do with less. 

[Jackk]

Sounds like the FAA isn’t doing what’s it paid to do.  I’d contact your elected leaders 

 

 FAAs incompetent attitude and congress etc getting sick of it is how we got sport pilots and basic med forced on the FAA, maybe if they are bothered with enough voters bringing this up they’ll give more power to APIAs

[N201MKTurbo]

Once upon a time, the FAA would approve things, but they decided they didn’t have the time or expertise to do it, so they created designated engineers.

Now they don’t have the time or expertise to supervise the designated engineers. 
 

So what does the FAA have any expertise in these days?

[Hank]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Once upon a time, the FAA would approve things, but they decided they didn’t have the time or expertise to do it, so they created designated engineers.

Now they don’t have the time or expertise to supervise the designated engineers. 

So what does the FAA have any expertise in these days?

Creating and expanding red tape . . . . And increasing their staffing level and budget, and justifying their many (non-ATC) careers.

[N201MKTurbo]

1 minute ago, Hank said:

Creating and expanding red tape . . . . And increasing their staffing level and budget, and justifying their many (non-ATC) careers.

So, the FAA doesn’t even run ATC, the union does. The FAA just pretends to be in charge.

[1980Mooney]

How does this get flipped around to blaming the FAA?  They are doing what our so called elected officials (who abdicated to DOGE) want them to do.  They are getting out of all the "inefficient activities"..  those activities that don't directly benefit commercial interests.  And where commercial interest are involved, the Govt/FAA are pushing the responsibility (and more importantly, the COST) onto the commercial interests (Boeing, Garmin, Cirrus, etc) by having them stand up and PAY FOR their own ODA.   Red tape?...they are getting rid of it by pushing it onto the ODA.

And this comment about "union runs ATC" plays right into their long term plan to outsource and privatize ATC with commercial ownership.  Be careful for what you wish.

You should call your Congressman and complain.  Ask them why they are not standing up and pushing back on the Administration's long term plan to gut GA for the average owner.

[Echo]

I pay to have AOPA be my advocate.  I am sure every Mooney owner is supporting them, right?

[toto]

19 minutes ago, Echo said:

I pay to have AOPA be my advocate.  I am sure every Mooney owner is supporting them, right?

I pay them $189/year

[N201MKTurbo]

4 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

And this comment about "union runs ATC" plays right into their long term plan to outsource and privatize ATC with commercial ownership.  Be careful for what you wish.

I don’t say that because I have any political agenda, I say that because I did an operation raincheck about a year ago and the controllers made that very clear.

[Paul Thomas]

15 hours ago, Echo said:

I pay to have AOPA be my advocate.  I am sure every Mooney owner is supporting them, right?

I've stopped and give extra money to EAA. AOPA hasn't done much in recent years and seems to be getting worse. A Mooney owner fought contractual issues that affect all other hangar owners in his state all the way to his state's supreme court and won; AOPA never supported the effort and refused to even send and email so that the class of affected users could be increased.

[Shadrach]

On 12/15/2025 at 1:20 PM, Paul Thomas said:

I've stopped and give extra money to EAA. AOPA hasn't done much in recent years and seems to be getting worse. A Mooney owner fought contractual issues that affect all other hangar owners in his state all the way to his state's supreme court and won; AOPA never supported the effort and refused to even send and email so that the class of affected users could be increased.

Can you elaborate on this case?

[Paul Thomas]

On 12/20/2025 at 6:10 AM, Shadrach said:

Can you elaborate on this case?

A state wasn't following the contract when it came to hangar rate increases and playing hardball knowing that the amounts are not worth the cost of the fight. In that state, the state manages the contracts, not the individual airports and the issue of the rate increase affected people throughout the state. Our Mooney owner decided to take on the fight and joined forced with others at his airport. He led the effort and has done a fantastic job. The group wanted help from AOPA but AOPA's position is that it didn't affect enough pilots for them to help. AOPA wouldn't even send an email to pilots in that state to help spread the word. I called AOPA to see if my contacts could do anything better; despite her effort, nothing was done.

While I agree that resources have to be allocated efficiently and it's AOPA's prerogative whether to flex their legal/legislative muscles, a note to their member should have been done so that other members in the same position as this group could have been joined the class. It would also have made that group's argument stronger by having more people affecting and people affected throughout the state. The ask when AOPA didn't want to help was either something in the magazine about the on-going fight or an email blast to the pilots based in that state. AOPA wouldn't do anything; the only time AOPA showed any interest was after the supreme court win.

I cancelled my membership because AOPA's value to me has been for these situations. I don't agree with the rationale given, that because they are in state without small pilot population, resources can't be given. AOPA exists so that to advocate for the small guy. I'd have agreed with AOPA if it looked at the issue and decided not to be involved based on the merits but I can't agree when the argument is that you won't get help because you're from a state that doesn't enough people... at that point why do you accept membership from pilots based there? While real assistance would have been appreciated, the refusal to do anything, even an email blast target to members in that state was enough for me to be done with AOPA and cancel my membership. AOPA hasn't done much of anything in the past 10/15 years; it is not the organization is used to be.

[MikeOH]

@Paul Thomas

Thanks for that summary.  I've been an AOPA member for nearly 50 years.  They are definitely NOT the advocate for the 'little guy' they were decades ago.  Your story infuriates me.  I can't think of a more appropriate use of AOPA resources; that they wouldn't lift even a virtual finger (send out emails) is unconscionable and unacceptable!

Frankly, I'll likely not renew next year based on this.  My EAA membership seems better suited to my GA flying.

[cliffy]

I have said for years that the FAA operates from the top down in aviation- everything is based on 121 and large TC holders.

Small GA is only an accommodation to those positions. One only has to look at ADSB to see how the FAA world revolves.

If you don't know the back story to ADSB look it up here

Its Federal and all about GDP!

Support for small GA airports? It used to be a way for small communities to bring in business but now with the ever expanding availability of commercial air transport small GA is pushed aside (unless the airport sponsor wants air service).

I have also felt for years that AOPA is falling behind in their previous role as the  leader in  their role as the voice of GA.  For this, one only has to look at the proliferation of "RAMP FEES" and the consolidation of major city hubs into a few (3) FBO chains. I personally talked to the previous head of AOPA at OSH a few years ago and as we all see it went nowhere with them. Every FAA supported airport should be required as part of their Grant Assurances  to provide a given number of tie downs (with a reasonable RON fee if used for RON), an accessible toilet facility and airport gate access 24/7. 

I do keep AOPA for the legal insurance (and their airplane insurance can be good for some)  but they seem to be too wound up in marketing Tee shirts than their basic job of supporting GA  JMO after 60 years watching them.

The hard reality is that small OLD GA is a dying breed. ALL of our wonderful Mooneys will die and go away just as most other legacy airframes will. 20 years from now there won 't be many Mooneys around at 75 years old or more (remember- we kill'm faster than we build'em). How many 75 year old cars are on the road today and who wants them? only a small group of antique collectors who trailer them to events. Even in that world (of which I am familiar) they admit in 20 years they won't be around any more.   

The world is changing, the population and its desires are changing and we (old GA) will move along (or out of the way) for it.     Again JMO

[Schllc]

6 hours ago, cliffy said:

The world is changing, the population and its desires are changing and we (old GA) will move along (or out of the way) for it.     Again JMO

I agree completely. If they don’t figure out a new set of rules to regulate/stimulate ga, and make it easier to innovate, and or build planes, it will absolutely be done in our lifetimes.