New LSA certification standards pending

[drseti]

From AvWeb:

The FAA today published a notice in the Federal Register of the availability of two new and eight revised consensus standards for certification of certain light sport aircraft and requested comments on the standards. Under light sport rules, ASTM International (formerly known as the American Society for Testing and Materials) Committee F37 on Light Sport Aircraft developed the standards with FAA participation. With the formal notice in the Federal Register, the FAA found the new standards acceptable and published them for comment. Under the light sport rules, the FAA expects that certification standards are to be reviewed at least every two years and revised as necessary. Included in the new or revised standards are those that apply to design, quality assurance and continued airworthiness of powered parachutes; design and performance of light sport aircraft; and quality assurance of fixed wing and lighter-than-air light sport aircraft.

Under the light sport rules, federal participation in the development and use of voluntary consensus standards and in conformity assessment activities is required. Those rules are less formal than the rule-making process the FAA must go through to change the Federal Aviation Regulations applicable to certification of non-light-sport aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA announced that its personnel have been working with ASTM International to develop consensus standards for light sport aircraft. The FAA said the consensus standards satisfy the FAA's goal for airworthiness certification and a verifiable minimum safety level for light sport aircraft. Instead of developing airworthiness standards through the rulemaking process, the FAA participates as a member of Committee F37 in developing these standards. According to the FAA, “the use of the consensus standard process assures government and industry discussion and agreement on appropriate standards for the required level of safety.”

[dstclair]

Anyone know of the changes?

[drseti]

Here' the Federal Register link, Dave:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-02 ... -04321.htm

[dstclair]

Not exactly useful. Only contains a reference to the accepted ASTM standards which you then can purchase from ASTM. Kind of discourages general public comment

[Mark Gregor]

I was not able to determine any information about the new standards either.
Does anyone know where or how to find them?

Jake

[ct4me]

Come on, it's the FAA/Gov't... you expect actual results??? Geez, this is only step 1 of a thousand.

[Check 6]

This is long term ongoing process. Newly "FAA Accepted Consensus Standards" are announced 1-2 times per year. Here is the current master list dated February 27, 2014:

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/ligh ... sChart.pdf

[Jack Tyler]

"Come on, it's the FAA/Gov't..."

No, it is NOT the FAA. ASTM is a private business (http://www.astm.org) that is allowed on the one hand to produce & assess standards to which the public is held accountable but on the other hand is not required to make them freely public. Personally, I've always found this stupefying and outrageous. (It's also a good example of how little stewardship by the LSA industry exists). I would have thought that when opening up an entirely new era & class of aviation, which was supposed to contribute significant salvation to GA's health, public access to and understanding of these new standards would be a central element in its successful introduction. I'm sure the EAA and AOPA HQ's have their various copies squirreled away, available to their staffs...and I'll bet all the major manufacturers, foreign and domestic, have copies. All purchased at their own expense, no doubt. And each of us can have our own copy for a mere $995 (http://www.astm.org/TRAIN/filtrexx40.cg ... detail.frm). Where's are the wikileaks-inspired journalists or aviation enthusiasts when you need them?!

I followed the same trail others have when I first saw the announcement on AVweb. It led nowhere. If both new and revised standards are big news in the LSA and Sport Aviation world, where's the beef?

[3Dreaming]

Jack, the comment about the FAA/Gov't is dirrected to the fact that the FAA issued a NPRM asking for comments, and they did not give any details of about what you can comment on. It is not about the fact the ASTM establishes the standards, and not the FAA.

[Jim Stewart]

"Come on, it's the FAA/Gov't..."

No, it is NOT the FAA. ASTM is a private business (http://www.astm.org) that is allowed on the one hand to produce & assess standards to which the public is held accountable but on the other hand is not required to make them freely public. Personally, I've always found this stupefying and outrageous. (It's also a good example of how little stewardship by the LSA industry exists). I would have thought that when opening up an entirely new era & class of aviation, which was supposed to contribute significant salvation to GA's health, public access to and understanding of these new standards would be a central element in its successful introduction. I'm sure the EAA and AOPA HQ's have their various copies squirreled away, available to their staffs...and I'll bet all the major manufacturers, foreign and domestic, have copies. All purchased at their own expense, no doubt. And each of us can have our own copy for a mere $995 (http://www.astm.org/TRAIN/filtrexx40.cg ... detail.frm). Where's are the wikileaks-inspired journalists or aviation enthusiasts when you need them?!

I followed the same trail others have when I first saw the announcement on AVweb. It led nowhere. If both new and revised standards are big news in the LSA and Sport Aviation world, where's the beef?

This is nothing new in the aviation business. Try getting ADS-B nuts and bolts technical details. Or going back further, ARINC standards. You gots to pay for them. ASTM isn't as bad as most. If you just need the Light Sport stuff, you can join the committee and be a member for $75 a year and get everything. I did it for two years and decided it wasn't worth it. But I agree, the standards should be free.

[Jack Tyler]

"Jack, the comment about the FAA/Gov't is dirrected to the fact that the FAA issued a NPRM asking for comments, and they did not give any details of about what you can comment on."

Which is another way of making my point. There's obviously going to be an intersection at some point on the continuum between regulatory oversight by the FAA (including their obligation to seek public input, required by statute) and the less burdensome standards development & ongoing assessment provided by ASTM. Why is the FAA asking for public comment about details not provided openly to the public? Because they chose to allow ASTM to treat the info as proprietary while making no allowance for open public access. My position is that such information belongs in the public domain, and I would have thought the FAA - and all the alphabet organizations we belong to - would see the logic of that reality. ASTM's position as a private for-profit organization is that they should be paid for access to their work. I don't quibble with that but I'm sure some kind of FAA-provided, staggered compensation system could have been proposed. My objection is that the FAA was willing to allow independent development of the standards, hold onto general oversight duties to meet the requirements of their charter, but ignored the piece of their charter which is to insure public participation. The FAA chose the Free Lunch program, expecting us to pick up the tab. Yet the FAA will be first in line to claim the standards are in part vetted by public review.

Re: Jim's comment, most of us would probably not find value in reviewing the standards...or even be motivated to look at them. But perhaps some would, including during a review process like the one just announced. Beyond that, aviation certainly doesn't lack for web publications and would-be journalists publishing and blogging and videoing LSA developments. I'm betting most of those journalists have never seen the standards. Who knows, perhaps a few of them would be able to offer some useful insights to all of us as they review models and build practices and such. This in turn might even offer a different level (and depth) of content than what we get from the self-congratulatory style of commentary that is the norm.

Wonder what would happen if the FAA discovered 2,000 public comments on the revised and new ASTM standards that objected to no open public access to the standards? (No, never gonna happen...)

[Merlinspop]

There's obviously going to be an intersection at some point on the continuum between regulatory oversight by the FAA (including their obligation to seek public input, required by statute) and the less burdensome standards development & ongoing assessment provided by ASTM. Why is the FAA asking for public comment about details not provided openly to the public?

Perhaps the part of Jack's message quote above SHOULD be everyone's comments.

It's common practice in the software industry to allow use of watered down or even full versions of software, on an evaluation basis. But to use it past the evaluation period, a license (or thousands!) have to be purchased. It would be easy enough for the FAA to tell ASTM to make the standards fully available for review, but then withhold S-LSA certification of a model unless the manufacture holds a valid license for the standard used. Obviously, it wouldn't be THAT simplistic, but it is doable.

[dstclair]

I would expect, at the least, an executive summary of the differences with instructions on how to obtain the details.

Certainly our alphabet pilot organizations are members and will publish an opinion at some point