Bill to Simplify Certification Passes Congress

[poadeleted20]

I understand that there is some difference between the E-AB and certified statistical record. But right now I have a 38 year old plane with the original Cessna avionics in it. If I hire a qualified avionics shop to have them install modern but non-certified avionics from a reputable manufacturer, such as Garmin or Aspen, assuming no install errors, is there any reason to think that I have not made the plane safer?

Yes -- the lack of testing and evaluation to confirm that those avionics will work as advertised reliably in all foreseeable flight conditions. That's the reason the FAA won't certify handhelds for IFR use -- no way to be sure things won't change if you move the location of the unit, antenna, or wiring around the cockpit.

The FAA and its predecessor CAA have spent nearly a century developing standards for certification based on experience -- mostly bad experiences. They can show you good reasons for every certification standard in the books, and the consequences of not building/testing to those standards. The experience of operations prior to those standards tells us the likely result of relaxing those standards will be a lower level of safety -- at a time when the public seems to want more assurances of safety, not more freedom to accept risk (especially when the risk is shared by others, not just the risk-taker).

 

[SoloEqs]

Everything else in the regs that refers to weight-based standards refers to MTOW. I would be very surprised if the bureaucrats read <2700 as empty weight. Far more likely that it becomes MTOW.

Even then, this is a seriously good thing. Consider that most planes below 2700 MTOW are "Chevy class," while those above are all "BMW class" or higher.

The >2700 birds are more likely to have owners who will (and CAN) spend money to upgrade them (the guy in the hangar next to mine has spent more on avionics for his C172RG than the total amount that I've spent for AIRPLANES).

The <2700 pilots are the ones who can benefit the most from cutting the costs. Imagine how much safer my C150 would be with the same electronic ignition and engine monitor (4 EGTs, 4 CHTs, alarms etc) that grace the E-AB next to it -- but the STC and PMA versions are priced way out of justifiability. It would cost half as much as the 150 is worth to get the same functionality (and installation) that the E-AB got for under $1000 and a couple hours of my time.

Or how about installing vortex generators?

I'd happily sit through a repairman class to be allowed to maintain my 150 the way I maintain my E-ABs.

 

[poadeleted20]

JeffDG is completely correct. The FAA could fund this out of their base funding by simply cutting something else out.

Like what? The FAA budget is already pared to the bone, and there simply is no money to do this without cutting core functions -- and that's not happening. Congress can certainly provide the funding to do this, but they haven't -- and that means the FAA is under no legal obligation to stop doing something else safety-related in order to put pictures on pilot certificates.

 

[poadeleted20]

Absolute BS. Ron, that is the dumbest thing you have ever put on POA, and statistically baseless.

Well, I've seen the stats, and they say what I said. I've also seen the guidance from AFS-800, which says the same. So you may choose not to believe the data, but the data do exist and they do say this. But calling it "baseless" is, well, baseless.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is that raw number, or weighted to reflect hours flown?

There are no reliable statistics on hours flown by light GA aircraft. AFAIK, these are all based on numbers of airframes.

Outside of planes used for commercial flying, E-ABs (on average) spend a lot more time in the air,

I've seen no statistics supporting that contention. Can you provide them?

 

[PPC1052]

Yes -- the lack of testing and evaluation to confirm that those avionics will work as advertised reliably in all foreseeable flight conditions. That's the reason the FAA won't certify handhelds for IFR use -- no way to be sure things won't change if you move the location of the unit, antenna, or wiring around the cockpit.

I can certainly imagine that occuring in theory. But is there any evidence to indicate that is true? Is there any evidence to suggest that new nav/coms from Garmin or Aspen, or similar manufacturer would be more dangerous than 38 year old radios?

 

[timwinters]

Absolute BS. Ron, that is the dumbest thing you have ever put on POA, and statistically baseless.

Nahh...really?...I mean...with well over 20,000 posts...there has to be a thousand or two that were dumber.

 

[Velocity173]

Is that raw number, or weighted to reflect hours flown?

Outside of planes used for commercial flying, E-ABs (on average) spend a lot more time in the air, because they are cheaper to fly and because the people who own them are more invested in "fun" flying. A homebuilt in the air every Saturday is more likely to have an incident than is a Piper which has been chained to the ground since May.

That's why they put everyone on an even plane by using the standard per 100,000 hrs flown. Total number of accidents has little value.

From 2004-2008 EAB had 6.29 fatals per 100,000 hrs flown compared to 1.09 in the SE piston certified fleet.

EAB vs certified accident rate is significantly higher. Everyone in the EAB community knows this, or at least they should know it. I get Sport Aviation every month and they even publish the stats. With this knowledge I still chose EAB easily over certified even with the higher insurance costs. Risk management.

As far as EAB being significantly cheaper, it depends on how you maintain your aircraft. If you're using parts from a hardware store, sure you can save some money but how many people are really doing that? Personally I only use aviation certified parts (besides my panel) when I maintain my aircraft. Company parts aren't cheap either. I just bought a lense cover for my landing light from Glasair for $78. Also, I'd say most maintenance deals with the engine anyway so we're spending the same amount for parts as anyone else unless its some auto conversion.

I think the FAA will be very restrictive in what they allow in certified. For instance, my Lycoming being attached to a homebuilt is considered experimental. Therefore I don't have to comply with ADs issued on it. If the FAA starts allowing non-certified parts be attached to certified aircraft, are they going to lift the AD requirement? I really can't see owners getting approval to put John Deer tractor alternators in their Pipers like I had in my Glasair.

 

[Geico266]

Yes -- they generally involve first flights or near first flights, and lack of training in type.

Because until recently it was illegal to use an experiential for commercial training purposes. The rules have changed and more CFIs can now train in EAB's. The " first flight" accidents were a direct result of not being able to train in the plane they are building.

 

[poadeleted20]

Because until recently it was illegal to use an experiential for commercial training purposes. The rules have changed and more CFIs can now train in EAB's. The " first flight" accidents were a direct result of not being able to train in the plane they are building.

The real problem, and one which I think AFS-800 will look into, is the "required crew only" limitation during the fly-off period. The problem with a commercial training program, or the instructor providing his/her own plane of the same type, is that the variations in flight/handling characteristics between what is ostensibly the same type E-AB are too great. You can get all the training you want in Instructor Bill's RV-7, but if your own is significantly different (and the odds are it will be), that training may not prepare you to fly your own.

I'd like to see the rules on this recognize the same concept discussed in the Kortokrax interpretation on landing currency -- that a trainee and instructor can be considered just crew, even when a second pilot is not technically required. That would allow the instructor with experience in type to take the plane up for its first couple of flights to determine just how similar it actually is to what the designer intended, and then fly with the owner/trainee in the plane for the next few hours to get the owner/trainee checked out, before sending the owner solo to fly out the rest of the 40 hours solo. The current system of "solo only, no exceptions" during those first 40 hours discourages what I think would be a safer practice -- getting training in the actual plane you'll be flying.

 

[SoloEqs]

There are no reliable statistics on hours flown by light GA aircraft. AFAIK, these are all based on numbers of airframes.

I've seen no statistics supporting that contention. Can you provide them?

Only empirically. The field where I live has about 20 planes, 3 of which are Xs -- which do half of the flying here. About 1/3 of the transient traffic is Xs. Over at Stead, not counting school flying, I'd say that the ratio is even stronger in favor of Xs.

At Brackett Field (SoCal) in the 1970s, maybe 5% of the planes were Xs, and if you took away the flying schools, the Xs had half of the non-transient takeoffs and landings. This is a major airport in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and this was back when you could buy a new Cessna for about the cost of the comparable-class car, and avgas was 25 cents per gallon.

As costs have gone up, I've seen a lot more Xs flying around compared to production aircraft. Pilots who can buy $3.50/gal autogas and fly planes that they maintain themselves can afford to fly more than those who put $6.00/gal avgas into planes that they have to pay someone else $50 to put a $7 air filter element into.

 

[poadeleted20]

Only empirically. The field where I live has about 20 planes, 3 of which are Xs

Not exactly a statistically significant sample, and not exactly scientifically collected. Let us know when you have significant, reliable numbers.

 

[SoloEqs]

It doesn't just have to do with the panel, though. If you start to put uncertified parts in you will probably have a lot to replace if you want to go back. Not that most people would want to go back.

Not as many parts as you might think. And they're not that hard to swap out. The steam gauges on my 150 are mounted on 2 subpanels, which are held into the airplane by about a dozen nuts. Likewise the radio stack is easy to completely remove. Starting from as it sits, assuming that I have all of the parts at hand, I could have electronic ignition and a complete glass panel ready to fly in a day, and that assumes EGTs and CHTs on all four cylinders, new temp and pressure senders, vacuum system out, GPS installed, etc.

All of the take-outs would sit in a box in the hangar, for the day that I sell the plane or decide to let someone use it for instruction.

 

[Skylane81E]

Only empirically. The field where I live has about 20 planes, 3 of which are Xs -- which do half of the flying here. About 1/3 of the transient traffic is Xs. Over at Stead, not counting school flying, I'd say that the ratio is even stronger in favor of Xs.

At Brackett Field (SoCal) in the 1970s, maybe 5% of the planes were Xs, and if you took away the flying schools, the Xs had half of the non-transient takeoffs and landings. This is a major airport in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and this was back when you could buy a new Cessna for about the cost of the comparable-class car, and avgas was 25 cents per gallon.

As costs have gone up, I've seen a lot more Xs flying around compared to production aircraft. Pilots who can buy $3.50/gal autogas and fly planes that they maintain themselves can afford to fly more than those who put $6.00/gal avgas into planes that they have to pay someone else $50 to put a $7 air filter element into.

You need to count the flight schools, they are lumped into the certificated accident rates as well

 

[SoloEqs]

Not exactly a statistically significant sample, and not exactly scientifically collected. Let us know when you have significant, reliable numbers.

Sorry, you made the assertion that Xs are more dangerous, so you're the one who has to provide significant, reliable numbers. Just basing it on the number of airframes is of no value, because it puts the RV that's flown every day on a par with the Cherokee that has been rotting on the ramp since 1977, and will never fly again.

 

[SoloEqs]

You need to count the flight schools, they are lumped into the certificated accident rates as well

My point is that we need to count flying hours, not just N numbers.

Just like the bad rep that the Bonanza got -- looking at the production numbers, that's a very dangerous plane. It's only when you look at the PILOTS that the truth emerges. Pilots who fly the V a lot live to fly the V a lot more. The guys who were killing themselves and their families were the ones who had little time to fly. That's why there's a BFR regulation now.

 

[AcroGimp]

The isssue I have with the 'reported' E-AB accident data is that the hours flown is a very rough approximation and is, in my opinion, under-reported/underestimated. This is also true, but less so, with respect to GA hours flown.

The primary causes for E-AB accidents are first flight/first 40 hours related as stated before. If the data could be normalized to remove or segregate experimental engines (auto-conversions, Rotax and other 2-strokes like snowmachine conversions, etc) I think the numbers would be more meaningful and likely more similar to certified.

Adequate training is a big contributor and FAA has seen the light on that insofar as allowing for type training/conversion training.

The days where no two E-AB's of the same type fly the same are behind us for the most part with major kitplanes until you get to gross errors in construction or W&B. More true on hand-built/non-kit designs.

The other contributing factor with respect to high-performance E-AB planes is that most are not very tolerant of engine-out operations (think Glasair III and Lancair's predominantly). With landing speeds of 80 or above survivability decreases (true for certified planes as well until you get into heavy iron which is why SE-GA has the 62 KIAS stall requirement).

E-AB's make up an ever growing % of the overall GA population and I suspect that makes the accident rates look worse for E-AB and better for certified, since you only really count the data for the accident aircraft - put another way, FAA may have a good idea about roughly how many hours are flown by SE-Piston aircraft in general, but I doubt they have a reliable breakdown of E-AB to certified for that - they do however know for a fact the cert basis for every accident plane - since that is part of the investigation.

'Gimp (wearing my Consultant Reliability, Maintainability and Safety Engineer hat)

 

[RotorAndWing]

And we have such a horrendous problem with experimentals. I tend to allow people to do what they want with established guidelines. Let them put their ass on the line. We don't need big brother in every aspect of our lives. Adding a Dynon Skyview to a 50 year old panel is a good thing for GA, and for the economy.

No wonder congress had to pass a law to reel in the FAA with attitudes like yours.

I offered a counter point to why these rewrites will take time and why there will be significant rewrites before you see a final product.

All you offer is insults if someone doesn't follow your line of thinking.

Who's got the "closed mind" and "attitude" here Larry.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Meh, there's been a long standing sample in Ex AB showing that isn't a major issue, besides, as long as it's not for commercial service, why should the FAA even care? Most Ex AB accidents aren't equipment or maintenance related. There are also already plenty of 'pencil whips' out there demonstrating current regulation is not perfect at doing its intention.

You clearly have a nescient understanding of the issues at hand.

 

[denverpilot]

When you realize no matter what, people will always try to figure a way around the regulations. Just read this board as an example.

And believe me, when these new regs come out giving people more freedom on certified airplanes there will be some that will give it the same treatment and basically ruin it for the rest.

Sorry, but that's the reality.

Sounds like an excellent opportunity for the reg writers to excel. And if they fail, the enforcers to excel. And there's always the Chief Counsel to save us all from ourselves after that. LOL.

It's the 80/20 rule or the bell curve again. If we'd quit pretending government can save the 20% who are idiots and let 'em crash and burn. The gene pool gets stronger and the rest of us wonder why they had a death wish.

The natural math and science doesn't support a nanny government other than to guarantee there's always going to be something the politicians can claim they're going to fix, if we'd only spend more money on them. Then they spend 80% of the money trying to fix the 20% problem. Which can never be solved.

 

[poadeleted20]

Sorry, you made the assertion that Xs are more dangerous, so you're the one who has to provide significant, reliable numbers.

See the NTSB report on point.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/EAB_Study/
Your move.

 

[hindsight2020]

I can't believe members of this board would actually object to this re-write as advertised. All this is doing is taking certified airplanes and making them de facto experimental by virtue of the operating (commercial) restrictions that they would now effectively share with Ex AB counterparts. The certified folks can keep paying through the nose at their own free will in order to keep their current commercial-use privileges via retaining the standard AW certificate. Knock yourselves out.

But to object to others making our standard AW airplanes into "primary non-commercial"? That's just tells me these people like keeping GA elite and underserved under the BS argument of safety via "part 25 style" certification. My Arrow WILL be safer from a redundancy, accuracy of systems and human factors POV by virtue of being able to afford the installation and maintenance of a non-certifed AHRS suite. To deny that is to be an obstructionist and not really have the re-invigoration of GA at heart. Further proof we're the problem. UFB.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I can't believe members of this board would actually object to this re-write as advertised. All this is doing is taking certified airplanes and making them de facto experimental by virtue of the operating (commercial) restrictions that they would now effectively share with Ex AB counterparts. The certified folks can keep paying through the nose at their own free will in order to keep their current commercial-use privileges via retaining the standard AW certificate. Knock yourselves out.

But to object to others making our standard AW airplanes into "primary non-commercial"? That's just tells me these people like keeping GA elite and underserved under the BS argument of safety via "part 25 style" certification. My Arrow WILL be safer from a redundancy, accuracy of systems and human factors POV by virtue of being able to afford the installation and maintenance of a non-certifed AHRS suite. To deny that is to be an obstructionist and not really have the re-invigoration of GA at heart. Further proof we're the problem. UFB.

I don't think anyone "objects", but there is a lot of speculation going on and like stated, this is still a long way from being finalized.

Again, the final regulations aren't even written yet.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I don't think anyone "objects", but there is a lot of speculation going on and like stated, this is still a long way from being finalized.

Again, the final regulations aren't even written yet.

Draft language changes to 14 CFR Part 23 appears in Appendix E of the ARC's final report that was referenced by the congressional bill. This process has been ongoing since 2009, after all. Industry isn't going to object - any pushback will be from internal FAA old timers and CYA types. They'll have to fight Earl Lawrence and Anthony Foxx and congressional support. Good luck to them....

 

[RotorAndWing]

Draft language changes to 14 CFR Part 23 appears in Appendix E of the ARC's final report that was referenced by the congressional bill. This process has been ongoing since 2009, after all. Industry isn't going to object - any pushback will be from internal FAA old timers and CYA types. They'll have to fight Earl Lawrence and Anthony Foxx and congressional support. Good luck to them....

That's right, it's still in draft. Lots can change between now and final rule making.

A good example was the Part 121 rewrite of flight and duty time. Everyone thought it was a done deal and on the 11th hour the "cargo carve out" happened.

The way some here are carrying on is as if the Part 23 rewrite is a done deal.

 

[Tom-D]

Yes -- the lack of testing and evaluation to confirm that those avionics will work as advertised reliably in all foreseeable flight conditions. That's the reason the FAA won't certify handhelds for IFR use -- no way to be sure things won't change if you move the location of the unit, antenna, or wiring around the cockpit.

The FAA and its predecessor CAA have spent nearly a century developing standards for certification based on experience -- mostly bad experiences. They can show you good reasons for every certification standard in the books, and the consequences of not building/testing to those standards. The experience of operations prior to those standards tells us the likely result of relaxing those standards will be a lower level of safety -- at a time when the public seems to want more assurances of safety, not more freedom to accept risk (especially when the risk is shared by others, not just the risk-taker).

That theory has been proven wrong with almost every invention since 1940.

or

explain why these non approved things work so well in the EXP/AB aircraft.

 

[SoloEqs]

From 2004-2008 EAB had 6.29 fatals per 100,000 hrs flown compared to 1.09 in the SE piston certified fleet.

That's the kind of info that means something. What's the source for the numbers?

As far as EAB being significantly cheaper, it depends on how you maintain your aircraft. If you're using parts from a hardware store, sure you can save some money but how many people are really doing that?

You can buy a starter solenoid for a Cherokee for $8 from the car-parts place, or the EXACT SAME PART through the aircraft distributors for several times the price.

More than that, YOU can install that part in an X, as opposed to paying most of $100 to have an A&P do the same 5-minute job for the Cherokee.

You can buy an electronic ignition for the O-200 for $1900 for an X, or the EXACT SAME SYSTEM for $3400 with the addition of a sticker that says "FAA PMA" on it. Or, on the X, you can build your own ignition using the same basic parts for about $500.

It's not just the parts cost. Aircraft Spruce, Wag Aero, etc have tons of parts that an X can use but which aren't approved for Cessnas, Pipers, etc. -- or are available with an STC for a higher price. However, once you have the part, then you have to pay someone else to install most of them. You're not even legally allowed to change the air filter on a production plane!

 

[Geico266]

See the NTSB report on point.
http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2012/EAB_Study/
Your move.

Those statistics are not "staggeringly higher" as you put it.

Experimentals are 10% of the GA fleet yet account for 15% of the accidents, 21% of fatalities. When you consider that a large portion of the certified GA fleet gets flown 25 hours a year or less, and experimentals are flown more the stats become more equal. Can experimentals do better? Yes.

Certainly not "staggeringly" higher.

 

[JeffDG]

That's right, it's still in draft. Lots can change between now and final rule making.

A good example was the Part 121 rewrite of flight and duty time. Everyone thought it was a done deal and on the 11th hour the "cargo carve out" happened.

The way some here are carrying on is as if the Part 23 rewrite is a done deal.

Was there an Act of Congress that told the Administrator to rewrite the flight and duty time provision, with attached new language and a provision mandating that the "Administrator shall issue a final rule on or before..."?

 

[steingar]

Those statistics are not "staggeringly higher" as you put it.

Experimentals are 10% of the GA fleet yet account for 15% of the accidents, 21% of fatalities. When you consider that a large portion of the certified GA fleet gets flown 25 hours a year or less, and experimentals are flown more the stats become more equal. Can experimentals do better? Yes.

Certainly not "staggeringly" higher.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And I doubt you have even a clue how much any type of airplane is flown on an annual basis. Most of the experimental aircraft of my familiarity fly less than mine as they are frequently being tinkered upon by their owners.

Whatever the FAA comes up with as rules out of this can't be a bad thing, sorry. The situation with what I can do with my aircraft can't get worse (any avionics upgrade costs nearly the value of my airframe as it is) and I doubt I could make my aircraft less valuable. As it stands I bet I could make more money parting it out than selling it whole.

 

[Geico266]

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And I doubt you have even a clue how much any type of airplane is flown on an annual basis. Most of the experimental aircraft of my familiarity fly less than mine as they are frequently being tinkered upon by their owners.

Whatever the FAA comes up with as rules out of this can't be a bad thing, sorry. The situation with what I can do with my aircraft can't get worse (any avionics upgrade costs nearly the value of my airframe as it is) and I doubt I could make my aircraft less valuable. As it stands I bet I could make more money parting it out than selling it whole.

Would you call the difference in accident rate "staggering"?

My point is Ron over stated and exaggerated the stats by saying the difference was "Staggering". It is not an accurate description of the 5% difference on accident rate, nor the 11% difference in fatality rate.

A portion of the difference can be attributed to may GA planes sitting in their hangars and not flying. (And to use the words of your fearless leader). Period.

 

[Everskyward]

Not as many parts as you might think. And they're not that hard to swap out. The steam gauges on my 150 are mounted on 2 subpanels, which are held into the airplane by about a dozen nuts. Likewise the radio stack is easy to completely remove. Starting from as it sits, assuming that I have all of the parts at hand, I could have electronic ignition and a complete glass panel ready to fly in a day, and that assumes EGTs and CHTs on all four cylinders, new temp and pressure senders, vacuum system out, GPS installed, etc.

All of the take-outs would sit in a box in the hangar, for the day that I sell the plane or decide to let someone use it for instruction.

Pilots don't usually replace things unless they are inop, with the possible exception of some avionics, so I don't think there will be much in people's boxes. What's in there would also be obsolete, or why would it have been replaced? Even if it ends up bring legal to go back to certified, I doubt that many owners would do it.

 

[wsuffa]

Would you call the difference in accident rate "staggering"?

My point is Ron over stated and exaggerated the stats by saying the difference was "Staggering". It is not an accurate description of the 5% difference on accident rate, nor the 11% difference in fatality rate.

A portion of the difference can be attributed to may GA planes sitting in their hangars and not flying. (And to use the words of your fearless leader). Period.

You must be reading the NTSB report differently than I.

From 2001-2011, the accident rate of E-AB aircraft was more than twice as high as comparable GA aircraft in similar flight operations. During that period, the fatal accident rate was more than three times that of comparable GA aircraft.

.............

E-AB aircraft account for a disproportionate number of total accidents and an even more disproportionate share of fatal accidents when compared with similar non-E-AB aircraft conducting similar flight operations.

http://www.ntsb.gov/news/2012/120522.html

That indicates to me that there are things that can be done better to lower the rate. It does not mean that E-AB are inherently unsafe, but that E-AB may have factors that certified aircraft don't have.

Given that the report indicates a large number of accidents early in the life of the aircraft (and a higher rate coincident with "new ownership" of an E-AB), I would be looking to "get-in-the-air-itis" (or impatience to fly the plane) when first built or when first acquired. It would lead me to think that improved test programs and pilot training could make a huge difference.

Given that the report also found that there generally weren't structural issues, I would think it should be possible to substantially lower the accident rate for E-AB. But doing so will require acknowledgement of the problem and a concerted effort to resolve.

"Staggeringly higher" is a term that is not really quantitative. In the context of safety, it may be much higher than when referred to in a non-life-safety situation. I certainly wouldn't argue with someone who made argument that an accident rate 2x the comparable rate for other products was "staggeringly higher, because it's a matter of perception. Were we discussing motor cars, I'd be willing to bet that the NHTSA would be moving to recall and/or ban vehicled that had accident rates so much higher than their peers.

YMMV.

 

[Henning]

Pilots don't usually replace things unless they are inop, with the possible exception of some avionics, so I don't think there will be much in people's boxes. What's in there would also be obsolete, or why would it have been replaced? Even if it ends up bring legal to go back to certified, I doubt that many owners would do it.

Not 'certified', it never leaves 'certified', bring back to 'commercial'.

 

[Everskyward]

Not 'certified', it never leaves 'certified', bring back to 'commercial'.

That doesn't really change what I said. The airplane has uncertified parts and it will probably be costly to bring it back to "commercial" if that's what you want to call it. So people who think it won't be a big deal probably have a surprise coming.

 

[Velocity173]

That's the kind of info that means something. What's the source for the numbers?



You can buy a starter solenoid for a Cherokee for $8 from the car-parts place, or the EXACT SAME PART through the aircraft distributors for several times the price.

More than that, YOU can install that part in an X, as opposed to paying most of $100 to have an A&P do the same 5-minute job for the Cherokee.

You can buy an electronic ignition for the O-200 for $1900 for an X, or the EXACT SAME SYSTEM for $3400 with the addition of a sticker that says "FAA PMA" on it. Or, on the X, you can build your own ignition using the same basic parts for about $500.

It's not just the parts cost. Aircraft Spruce, Wag Aero, etc have tons of parts that an X can use but which aren't approved for Cessnas, Pipers, etc. -- or are available with an STC for a higher price. However, once you have the part, then you have to pay someone else to install most of them. You're not even legally allowed to change the air filter on a production plane!

Source is NTSB website under the news forum.

I agree a lot of the maintenance practices you talk of would save money but do we really know the extent right now of what the FAA will allow in the bill? I go back to my John Deer tractor alternator in my Glasair that costs a fraction of certified. If FAA allows this does the aircraft now become experimental? Would owners now comply with ADs on the aircraft where only certified parts are used? When a owner has an accident with their Piper that is using uncertified parts in the control system will Piper be liable? Will Lycoming be liable once and engine is modified from its original design with homebuilt parts?

Getting back to glass. I've used AHARS and I've used spinning gyros. Both had the same failure rate. As I said, NTSB did a study and they proved glass is no more safer than anolog. Also, I think a lot of people are going to be surprise at what maintenance will cost on a new AHARS box when it does fail.

Once again, this will provide a little bit of relief in cost for GA but far from a jump start. What we need are more new, efficient designs like Cirrus but at a realistic price that the average guy can afford. Our current aging certified fleet was never meant to be operating this long.

 

[Tom-D]

Not 'certified', it never leaves 'certified', bring back to 'commercial'.

How do you know that? the rules aren't even written yet.

The FAA has until 2015 to write the new FAR, and there will/should be a comment period in that time .

Anyone telling you what these rules will say is simply guessing.

 

[Henning]

That doesn't really change what I said. The airplane has uncertified parts and it will probably be costly to bring it back to "commercial" if that's what you want to call it. So people who think if won't be a big deal probably have a surprise coming.

Much less of a deal than taking it into Ex-R&D and returning it which I believe requires a DAR.

 

[Tom-D]

Much less of a deal than taking it into Ex-R&D and returning it which I believe requires a DAR.

No….. it does not. (Require)

 

[poadeleted20]

BTW, regarding the question on getting training in newly-built E-AB's during the fly-off period, guess what -- the FAA is already working on that with EAA (among others). No details available yet, but the goal is an announcement at AirVenture.