Sport Pilot Talk

Some of us have been discussing, in various threads and from different angles, how the FARs and the a/c certification standards have influenced what & how we fly. So I thought the post below might be of some interest. The post's author, who posted this on a Grumman message list today, has been close to the ARC process and I found his report revealing. Don't miss the 'punch line' of sorts at the end, either.

"Subject: The future world of certified aircraft

There has been a few "if only we could..." type discussions about our types of
aircraft lately, so I thought I would drop a few lines about some things that
are going on.

First of all, the FAA (and other regulatory CAA folks) are not always
the ogres they are often perceived to be.

The FAA Small Airplane Directorate for example has been at the forefront of
pushing for regulatory changes to make certification easier and less expensive
without sacrificing safety. They would be among the first to agree that
current regulation and policy is often a barrier to wide scale equipage of
safety enhancing technology. They pushed very hard to help make manufacture
and installation of an AOA affordable. They are also bound by law. Contrary
to popular belief, the FAA does not have the power to make laws, only congress
can do that. Congress has delegated some regulatory authority to the FAA, but
only when they follow certain procedure(s) (such as the NPRM and public
comment process).

There are some big changes working.

Recently, a Part 23 ARC (Aviation Rulemaking Committee) made recommendation
for changes in Part 23. The goal was to reduce the cost of certification (by
half) while doubling safety. The recommendation(s), in a nutshell, were to
reduce the regulations (FAR 23) to the safety intent of the regulation and to
abstract all the design specifics, and technology specific, test criteria,
etc. to a consensus standard (which must be accepted by the regulatory body as
a means of compliance to the regulation). It is clear to almost everyone that
our current certification rules have become too complex, too technology
specific (eg. how does one show an arc on an instrument, when that instrument
has been replaced by a PFD and the data is shown on a "tape display" or why
should one be required to have a magnetic compass when the real requirement is
a reliable means to know direction) Congress then passed the small airplane
revitalization act mandating that the FAA implement the objectives of the ARC
recommendations.

ASTM (of Conshohocken PA) has been selected as the body to create the standard
for compliance with the "new" part 23. The FAA is still working out many
details regarding the wording of the new Part 23, but it has actually made it
passed the first review by the FAA lawyers, and it has not come off the rails
yet.

There was a Part 23 ARC meeting in Wichita last month to review the proposed
new language (the new part 23 would be much much smaller than the current 14
CFR 23) and there is still a lot of "devil in the details" but the concept
of tiered or "tailored" application of regulation is a cornerstone of the
revised concept.

ASTM is meeting in Brussels next month (F44 - is the Part 23 Standard group).
Another good thing about this revision concept is that it is being supported
by TCCA, EASA, ANAC, CAAC, and CAA-NZ among other aviation regulators, and it
is the intent that they will all accept all or part of the ASTM standard(s) as
means of compliance to their regulations, so a product designed and built in
one country won't have to go through different certification hoops for
everyplace it is sold and operated. The Brussels meeting is intended to have
complete (or nearly so) a first set of compliance standards to accompany a new
set of regulations which can then go through the NPRM and public comment
process.

Having been to many of both the ARC and the ASTM meetings, I have to say that
our FAA Small Airplane Directorate has been doing a stellar job of
representing the case for GA and small airplanes. GAMA (General Aviation
Manufacturers Association), AOPA, and a number of aviation industry
manufacturers have been as well. I believe everyone is on board with the
concept and objectives, but as you can well imagine, in what would be a
massive change like what is proposed, there is less than total harmony on the
details (perhaps a bit understated ). That said, it is still moving in
the right direction at a pace I would not have dreamed possible. Change is
never easy.

There is also an active Part 21 ARC, and they are attempting to address many
of the other issues discussed here recently including an "owner maintained"
classification for certified aircraft that are not used for any compensation
or hire operations, but unlike the one now used in Canada, would allow a path
for an aircraft to be moved back into the "standard" category.

Change is coming. There is light on the horizon. don't hold your breath - it
won't be here in the next 5 minutes or so. There are still lots of ways for
this to come completely off the rails, or to get defined by a required done
date and not by the task and therefore end up not much or any better than what
we have today, but... I am cautiously optimistic. We are really talking
about revitalizing small aircraft. To make owning and flying a small airplane
both safe and affordable again, and so far has held together and made steady
positive progress. The regulators, FAA and others, have been a positive part
of the process.

Oh yes- another thing- the new Part 23 might allow for bringing what is now light
sport aircraft under the certified aircraft regulations without losing any of
the privileges or advantages they offer, much like Europe has accomplished
under CS-23. (CS-23 by the way, is a "standard" and not a regulation like 14
CFR 23).

Robert Grove
Tiger N74867"

Good post Jack, thanks for passing on the info.

Jack Tyler wrote: . . . [Robert Grove]"Oh yes- another thing- the new Part 23 might allow for bringing what is now light sport aircraft under the certified aircraft regulations without losing any of the privileges or advantages they offer, " . . .

What would the advantages to that?

......

Wm: "What would the advantages to that [be]?"

Since we don't yet have the language, it's hard to say. Seen from a Part 23 perspective, one advantage might be that 'we' (Part 23 a/c owners and non-SPL certificated pilots) might be able to enjoy some of the benefits of LSA owners and SPL pilots. Just ruminating here...but perhaps a good example is that I'd love to have the option to go to Tiger Aircraft (holder of the type certificate for my a/c) and their head of engineering, Lloyd Montague, for a LoA permitting me to modify my Grumman Tiger vs. needing to work through the Orlando FSDO. And/or avoiding the need to seek out a DAR for an inspection & sign-off for a mod, when the DAR might be generally very experienced but hasn't built 92 Grumman Tigers like Lloyd has.

Conversely, from the LSA owner's perspective, how easy is it to obtain approved repair parts and obtain approval for upgrades on orphaned LSA a/c that have no type certificate owner? I ask because I don't know...but the FAA has made that possible for Part 23 a/c (altho' it isn't necessarily easy or cheap). As those procedures are (hopefully, ideally, fingers crossed and so forth) streamlined via the ARC recommendations, those procedures might prove helpful to LSA owners who's a/c have already been or will be orphaned and/or who want to further upgrade their a/c over time.

Just thinking out loud. Again, as Robert said, the devil's in the details.

Jack Tyler wrote:Wm: "What would the advantages to that [be]?"

Since we don't yet have the language, it's hard to say. Seen from a Part 23 perspective, one advantage might be that 'we' (Part 23 a/c owners and non-SPL certificated pilots) might be able to enjoy some of the benefits of LSA owners and SPL pilots. Just ruminating here...but perhaps a good example is that I'd love to have the option to go to Tiger Aircraft (holder of the type certificate for my a/c) and their head of engineering, Lloyd Montague, for a LoA permitting me to modify my Grumman Tiger vs. needing to work through the Orlando FSDO. And/or avoiding the need to seek out a DAR for an inspection & sign-off for a mod, when the DAR might be generally very experienced but hasn't built 92 Grumman Tigers like Lloyd has.

Conversely, from the LSA owner's perspective, how easy is it to obtain approved repair parts and obtain approval for upgrades on orphaned LSA a/c that have no type certificate owner? I ask because I don't know...but the FAA has made that possible for Part 23 a/c (altho' it isn't necessarily easy or cheap). As those procedures are (hopefully, ideally, fingers crossed and so forth) streamlined via the ARC recommendations, those procedures might prove helpful to LSA owners who's a/c have already been or will be orphaned and/or who want to further upgrade their a/c over time.

Just thinking out loud. Again, as Robert said, the devil's in the details.

Thank you.

Jack, at present the only path for owners of an orphaned SLSA is to re-register it as an ELSA. Eddie knows more about that process than anyone else here; perhaps he'd care to elucidate.

Jack Tyler wrote:Wm: "What would the advantages to that [be]?"

Since we don't yet have the language, it's hard to say. Seen from a Part 23 perspective, one advantage might be that 'we' (Part 23 a/c owners and non-SPL certificated pilots) might be able to enjoy some of the benefits of LSA owners and SPL pilots. Just ruminating here...but perhaps a good example is that I'd love to have the option to go to Tiger Aircraft (holder of the type certificate for my a/c) and their head of engineering, Lloyd Montague, for a LoA permitting me to modify my Grumman Tiger vs. needing to work through the Orlando FSDO. And/or avoiding the need to seek out a DAR for an inspection & sign-off for a mod, when the DAR might be generally very experienced but hasn't built 92 Grumman Tigers like Lloyd has.

Conversely, from the LSA owner's perspective, how easy is it to obtain approved repair parts and obtain approval for upgrades on orphaned LSA a/c that have no type certificate owner? I ask because I don't know...but the FAA has made that possible for Part 23 a/c (altho' it isn't necessarily easy or cheap). As those procedures are (hopefully, ideally, fingers crossed and so forth) streamlined via the ARC recommendations, those procedures might prove helpful to LSA owners who's a/c have already been or will be orphaned and/or who want to further upgrade their a/c over time.

Just thinking out loud. Again, as Robert said, the devil's in the details.

Another possibility...perhaps a S-LSA or E-ELSA could be brought under the certification umbrella, then flown IFR?

......

Paul, my ruminations were meant to offer possibilities about the future, not comments about the way things are. In reality, it's all about the details and - like the NPRM for the 3rd class medical - we can't know what we don't know until we know it.

Jack Tyler wrote: - we can't know what we don't know until we know it.

No, but we can know that we don't know it.