Changes afoot for the FARs and Certification
Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2014 5:59 pm
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has been replaced by a PFD and the data is shown on a "tape display" or why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"
"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"