tony Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories/House-Passes-Small-Airplane-Revitalization-Act_79710.html#.UecMGLTD_IU its about time..... hopefully the senate will follow suit.
scottfromiowa Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 AWESOME! Hope it moves quickly to implementation.
mike_elliott Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 Great news IF the FAA doesn't seize the opportunity to further muck it up with still yet more bureaucracy they can fit into the little loopholes, like they did with the NPR for pilot and instrument certification. 1
OR75 Posted July 17, 2013 Report Posted July 17, 2013 sounds like the 'Pilot's Bill of Rights" ... but then again, you hear about those pilots having their planes searched and not knowing who is behind it and why
scottfromiowa Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 COME ON MAN, LET ME BASK IN THE MOMENT...JUST FOR A LITTLE WHILE
Jamie Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 There are lots of avionics and other upgrades I'd buy at "homebuilt" prices that simply will not be purchased at "certified" prices. I can't afford it. It's not that I'll buy fewer... I won't by ANY. You'd think manufacturers would be all over this. Drop prices to a "yeah, sure... why not" level for more pilots and they'll make more money overall, right?
aaronk25 Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 Very cool!!!!!!! Best news of the year!!! Way t go gami, I got a hunch they were getting upset at the huge costs for certification of new products...maybe some one will make a wastegate turbo for my20j......
1964-M20E Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 This is great hopefully it passes. The sad thing is the FA is not doing this on their own congress needs to force them.
jlunseth Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 What is all the excitement about? This is a bill sponsored by a Kansas Republican Congressman (home of Garmin, Cessna, et al.), passed by a Republican-controlled House. It limits the regulatory power of a Federal Agency (makes government smaller). I don't think I am going very far out on a limb here to say it has about as much chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate or getting signed into law by the current Democrat in the Oval Office, as I do of making it around the world on one tank in my M20K, even LOP. It may even be a good idea, but frankly it is just political grandstanding, trying to score some points with a constituency. A better question is why such a law was not proposed when Republicans had the votes and control, and could have actually gotten it done.
tony Posted July 18, 2013 Author Report Posted July 18, 2013 What is all the excitement about? This is a bill sponsored by a Kansas Republican Congressman (home of Garmin, Cessna, et al.), passed by a Republican-controlled House. It limits the regulatory power of a Federal Agency (makes government smaller). I don't think I am going very far out on a limb here to say it has about as much chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate or getting signed into law by the current Democrat in the Oval Office, as I do of making it around the world on one tank in my M20K, even LOP. It may even be a good idea, but frankly it is just political grandstanding, trying to score some points with a constituency. A better question is why such a law was not proposed when Republicans had the votes and control, and could have actually gotten it done. A better question is: why do I need a law to control, an out of control and out of touch, government agency? 1
Cruiser Posted July 18, 2013 Report Posted July 18, 2013 I don't want to be too negative but as near as I can tell, the House Bill (which passed unanimously by the way) merely forces the FAA to implement recommendations put forth by a nine person committee that published their findings last year (May 22, 2012). The Aircraft Certification Process Review and Reform Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC for short) came up with 43 pages of recommendations. Some were pretty good but it mostly dealt with streamlining and efficiency improvements. The only regulatory item was a suggestion that the FAA accept as certified those items certified by other aviation regulatory agencies such as European equipment and aircraft. The biggest change that I could see was a recommendation to setup a Certified Design Organization, which this committee got from a previous committee that had made this recommendation years ago. It basically establishes third party companies approved by the FAA to do the certification and submit the results to the FAA for final approval. This would certainly speed up the process but I did not see anything that remotely looked like a change to the certification process that would result in a less costly method of getting new designs to the GA community. The FAA has until 2016 to implement and this bill is not even half way to law yet. ........ Don't hold your breath.
DaV8or Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 Very cool!!!!!!! Best news of the year!!! Way t go gami, I got a hunch they were getting upset at the huge costs for certification of new products...maybe some one will make a wastegate turbo for my20j...... Just to keep it real, GAMI, General Aviation Modifications, Inc., the folks that bring us injectors, turbo systems and preach the LOP, had nothing to do with this bill to my knowledge. It was GAMA, General Aviation Manufacturing Association, a lobbying group, much like the AOPA, or EAA that represents manufactures like Cessna, Piper and Beech that worked on this.
1964-M20E Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 The act should have directed the FAA to get out of the certification business for small aircraft all together (6 passengers and less and less than 6,000lbs gross weight) and just have performance specs for aircraft and systems. IMHO
AmigOne Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 Check these comments (DC Pilots Forum) from somebody who actually read the law: It really doesn't require the FAA to do anything. (1) Create a regulatory regime for small airplanes that will improve safety and decrease certification costs. They can claim they already do that. (2) Set broad, outcome-driven safety objectives that will spur innovation and technology adoption. Same (3) Replace current, prescriptive requirements contained in FAA rules with performance-based regulations. ? Not even sure what that means. (4) Use FAA-accepted consensus standards to clarify how the part 23 safety objectives may be met by specific designs and technologies. Again, that means nothing really. They can say they already do that. e.g. LSA is driven by industry standards and inspections. I'm a Systems Engineer by profession and I can tel you that these are nothing like an actual measurable requirement to do anything," 1
1964-M20E Posted July 19, 2013 Report Posted July 19, 2013 Amigone I agree with you it really does nothing. Lip service at best.
tony Posted October 9, 2013 Author Report Posted October 9, 2013 http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/80375.html
DaV8or Posted October 9, 2013 Report Posted October 9, 2013 Here is the text of the bill. Sounds like a good start and at least some folks on capitol hill recognize value of GA and the problems we face today. HR 1848 EAS In the Senate of the United States, October 4, 2013. Resolved, That the bill from the House of Representatives (H.R. 1848) entitled ‘An Act to ensure that the Federal Aviation Administration advances the safety of small airplanes, and the continued development of the general aviation industry, and for other purposes.’, do pass with the following AMENDMENT: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013’. SEC. 2. FINDINGS. Congress makes the following findings: (1) A healthy small aircraft industry is integral to economic growth and to maintaining an effective transportation infrastructure for communities and countries around the world. (2) Small airplanes comprise nearly 90 percent of general aviation aircraft certified by the Federal Aviation Administration. (3) General aviation provides for the cultivation of a workforce of engineers, manufacturing and maintenance professionals, and pilots who secure the economic success and defense of the United States. (4) General aviation contributes to well-paying jobs in the manufacturing and technology sectors in the United States and products produced by those sectors are exported in great numbers. (5) Technology developed and proven in general aviation aids in the success and safety of all sectors of aviation and scientific competence. (6) The average small airplane in the United States is now 40 years old and the regulatory barriers to bringing new designs to the market are resulting in a lack of innovation and investment in small airplane design. (7) Since 2003, the United States lost 10,000 active private pilots per year on average, partially due to a lack of cost-effective, new small airplanes. (8) General aviation safety can be improved by modernizing and revamping the regulations relating to small airplanes to clear the path for technology adoption and cost-effective means to retrofit the existing fleet with new safety technologies. SEC. 3. SAFETY AND REGULATORY IMPROVEMENTS FOR GENERAL AVIATION. (a) In General- Not later than December 15, 2015, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue a final rule-- (b Objectives Described- The objectives described in this subsection are based on the recommendations of the Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee: (c Consensus-Based Standards- In prescribing regulations under this section, the Administrator shall use consensus standards, as described in section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1996 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), to the extent practicable while continuing traditional methods for meeting part 23. (d) Safety Cooperation- The Administrator shall lead the effort to improve general aviation safety by working with leading aviation regulators to assist them in adopting a complementary regulatory approach for small airplanes. (e) Definitions- In this section: (1) to advance the safety and continued development of small airplanes by reorganizing the certification requirements for such airplanes under part 23 to streamline the approval of safety advancements; and (2) that meets the objectives described in subsection (b. (1) The establishment of a regulatory regime for small airplanes that will improve safety and reduce the regulatory cost burden for the Federal Aviation Administration and the aviation industry. (2) The establishment of broad, outcome-driven safety objectives that will spur innovation and technology adoption. (3) The replacement of current, prescriptive requirements under part 23 with performance-based regulations. (4) The use of consensus standards accepted by the Federal Aviation Administration to clarify how the safety objectives of part 23 may be met using specific designs and technologies. (1) CONSENSUS STANDARDS- (2) PART 23- The term ‘part 23’ means part 23 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations. (3) PART 23 REORGANIZATION AVIATION RULEMAKING COMMITTEE- The term ‘Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee’ means the aviation rulemaking committee established by the Federal Aviation Administration in August 2011 to consider the reorganization of the regulations under part 23. (4) SMALL AIRPLANE- The term ‘small airplane’ means an airplane which is certified to part 23 standards. (A) IN GENERAL- The term ‘consensus standards’ means standards developed by an organization described in subparagraph (b that may include provisions requiring that owners of relevant intellectual property have agreed to make that intellectual property available on a nondiscriminatory, royalty-free, or reasonable royalty basis to all interested persons. (b ORGANIZATIONS DESCRIBED- An organization described in this subparagraph is a domestic or international organization that-- (i) plans, develops, establishes, or coordinates, through a process based on consensus and using agreed-upon procedures, voluntary standards; and (ii) operates in a transparent manner, considers a balanced set of interests with respect to such standards, and provides for due process and an appeals process with respect to such standards. Attest: Secretary. 113th CONGRESS 1st Session H.R. 1848 AMENDMENT
flyboy0681 Posted October 9, 2013 Report Posted October 9, 2013 I don't think I am going very far out on a limb here to say it has about as much chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate or getting signed into law by the current Democrat in the Oval Office So what we are likely to hear if it passes the Senate is a remark by the president to the effect of "This bill is bad for America and therefore I am vetoing this ill conceived piece of legislation"?
Seth Posted October 14, 2013 Report Posted October 14, 2013 The senate passed the bill accoridng to AVWEB that was emailed out today. House passed it unanimously in July as indicated by previous posts on this topic, not sure about the senate vote numbers, but it passed. -Seth
231flyer Posted October 17, 2013 Report Posted October 17, 2013 Confirmed at AOPA Summit here at Ft.Worth. The ASTM International rep confirmed their F44 committee is charged with developing the new standards and regulations to implement the Part 23 ARC. They expect the new standards/regs to be completed and approved by q3 2014. OEMs should have conforming products in 2015.
flyboy0681 Posted October 17, 2013 Report Posted October 17, 2013 I don't think I am going very far out on a limb here to say it has about as much chance of passing the Democratically controlled Senate or getting signed into law by the current Democrat in the Oval Office Still feel the same way? 1
Cruiser Posted November 28, 2013 Report Posted November 28, 2013 Signed by the President on November 27, 2013 Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013 is now law.
Recommended Posts