Bill to Simplify Certification Passes Congress

Geico266

Geico266

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
19,136
Location
Husker Nation, NE
Display Name
Display name:
Geico
This bill will reduce the cost of certification for new Part 23 aircraft and allow existing planes to move into a "Non-Certified" category. In addition I think this bill will allow owners (like the current experimentals) work on the plane after taking a repairman's course and an A&P is all that is needed for the sign off. Also, you can put in non TSOed equipment into the panels.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-bill-to-reduce-cost-of-flying.aspx?CMP=ADV:1

Obama needs to sign it.
 
Last edited:
Is it 1 April already?
 
May help the little guy, but I doubt it'll do anything to save the industry. Can't create demand out of thin air.
 
denverpilot said:
May help the little guy, but I doubt it'll do anything to save the industry. Can't create demand out of thin air.
Click to expand...

Might not 'save' it, but it'll help. There's a lot of 'hot rodder' money out there, with this it becomes available to the aviation market.
 
Should of happened years ago when the downturn in G/A started. Hopefully it will help.should help us little guys. May even help to bring down costs with more competition in the market.
 
If they don't do something soon, it will be like the US battery industry....as in there is none ankmore.
 
I can't afford an STec autopilot based on airframe value, but I'll put a Trio or Trutrack in the week after the regs take effect.
The 46 year old engine instruments will get replaced with a Dynon EMS.
A Dynon (or similar) EFIS goes in the first year.

Yeah, I'm excited about this.
 
PilotAlan said:
I can't afford an STec autopilot based on airframe value, but I'll put a Trio or Trutrack in the week after the regs take effect.
The 46 year old engine instruments will get replaced with a Dynon EMS.
A Dynon (or similar) EFIS goes in the first year.

Yeah, I'm excited about this.
Click to expand...

I see nothing in that bill that will permit this.

Seriously, it just tells the FAA to streamline adoption of safety regulations, and simplify Part 23. It does not require the FAA to permit "owner maintenance" or non-certified parts.
 
JeffDG said:
I see nothing in that bill that will permit this.

Seriously, it just tells the FAA to streamline adoption of safety regulations, and simplify Part 23. It does not require the FAA to permit "owner maintenance" or non-certified parts.
Click to expand...

The bill states "The objectives described in this subsection are based on the recommendations of the Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee" and that committee's report can be found here:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...a/Part.23.Reorganization.ARC.FINAL.Report.pdf

See, for example, under section 3.3.5. Since congress based its objectives on the recommendations of that committee, and the committee is named in the legislation, that document pretty much spells out how this should in theory all play out in terms of changes to the regulations.
 
JeffDG said:
I see nothing in that bill that will permit this.

Seriously, it just tells the FAA to streamline adoption of safety regulations, and simplify Part 23. It does not require the FAA to permit "owner maintenance" or non-certified parts.
Click to expand...

The bill incorporates the "recommendations of the Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee", which are here: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...a/Part.23.Reorganization.ARC.FINAL.Report.pdf

Read Appendix G.4, begins on page 308 "Primary*Non-Commercial*Category*Proposal"
 
JeffDG said:
I see nothing in that bill that will permit this.

Seriously, it just tells the FAA to streamline adoption of safety regulations, and simplify Part 23. It does not require the FAA to permit "owner maintenance" or non-certified parts.
Click to expand...

Read the rewrite of Pt 23 that this legislation attaches to. If your plane weighs <2700lbs (they don't refer to Gross Weight, they say, "weighs") and has a single engine, you will be able to put it into a 'Non Commercial' category which allows you the same maintenance and equipment rules as Ex A/B. In order to get it back to Standard, just get all the non certified stuff out of the plane and have it annualed by an IA.
 
Geico266 said:
This bill will reduce the cost of certification for new Part 23 aircraft and allow existing planes to move into a "Non-Certified" category. In addition I think this bill will allow owners (like the current experimentals) work on the plane after taking a repairman's course and an A&P is all that is needed for the sign off. Also, you can put in non TSOed equipment into the panels.

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/...-bill-to-reduce-cost-of-flying.aspx?CMP=ADV:1

Obama needs to sign it.
Click to expand...

"If you like the airplane you have, you can keep it (and modify it).:rofl:

Cheers
 
Henning said:
Read the rewrite of Pt 23 that this legislation attaches to. If your plane weighs <2700lbs (they don't refer to Gross Weight, they say, "weighs") and has a single engine, you will be able to put it into a 'Non Commercial' category which allows you the same maintenance and equipment rules as Ex A/B. In order to get it back to Standard, just get all the non certified stuff out of the plane and have it annualed by an IA.
Click to expand...

Ooh, go back and forth?

I like it!
 
PilotAlan said:
The bill incorporates the "recommendations of the Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee", which are here: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...a/Part.23.Reorganization.ARC.FINAL.Report.pdf

Read Appendix G.4, begins on page 308 "Primary*Non-Commercial*Category*Proposal"
Click to expand...

None of the aviation press seems to be talking about this. I had no idea. I thought it was all for and about the regular certification process.

They must be scared of where advertising revenues are headed. If there really is a Private / Non-Commercial category created in the U.S., that's the biggest news in aviation in my lifetime.
 
King KX-170s, non TSO'd radios were installed in thousands of airplanes certified in the "normal" category. Seems like the FAA has been turning their heads for decades.
 
Greatest news since I became a private pilot, no question about it.

I'm with PilotAlan on this one, this is gonna reinvigorate the certified spam can market and provide an alternative to the 4-seater market currently underserved by the ex-AB side of the house. I personally will finally be able to afford an AHRS flight instrumentation installation in the Arrow as a result of this. Good stuff!
 
This bill is undoubtedly too little too late for the certified OEM's like Beech, Cessna, Cirrus, etc.

BUT it will be a real boon to guys with planes that can move to the 'non-commercial' status with respect to opening up incredible avionics upgrades - safety could very well improve due to increased situational awareness, and the experimental avionics guys are going to see their markets explode - certified avionics OEM's like Garmin, Aspen, etc., will have to change their approach or get left in the dust.

Dynon Skyview or MGL iEFIS with remote radios and autopilot in a Turbo Super Viking, hot rod Mooney or dolled up V-Tail Bonanza - oh hell yeah!

'Gimp
 
When I see the NPRM in response to this Act, I'll be able to think about it. Until then, it's just like the photos on the pilot certificate (which Congress required ten years ago but haven't happened yet), or the PBOR (the only effect of which that I've noticed is another paper to sign before taking a practical test).
 
jhausch said:
I think Garmin will not benefit as much as the non-cert guys. Are their experimental avionics price competitive with the likes of Dynon and others?
Click to expand...

The Garmin G3X system is extremely competitive, if not cheaper. . ;)

What would most certified guy want in their panels GRT, MGL, Advanced, Dynon or Garmin? If the cost is the same (and it is) Garmin is the strongest company. I would put Garmin in over the others in a heart beat. 3 of the 5 companies I mentioned won't be here in 10 years. There will be a lot of consolidation in the coming years.

Think resale.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
The Garmin G3X system is extremely competitive, if not cheaper.. ;)

What would most certified guy want in their panels GRT, MGL, Advanced, Dynon or Garmin? If the cost is the same (and it is) Garmin is the strongest company. I would put Garmin in over the others in a heart beat. 3 of the 5 I mentioned won't be here in 10 years. There will be a lot of consolidation in the coming years.

Think resale.
Click to expand...

I ASSumed Garmin Ex stuff was more expensive. Thanks for setting me straight.
 
AcroGimp said:
This bill is undoubtedly too little too late for the certified OEM's like Beech, Cessna, Cirrus, etc.

BUT it will be a real boon to guys with planes that can move to the 'non-commercial' status with respect to opening up incredible avionics upgrades - safety could very well improve due to increased situational awareness, and the experimental avionics guys are going to see their markets explode - certified avionics OEM's like Garmin, Aspen, etc., will have to change their approach or get left in the dust.

Dynon Skyview or MGL iEFIS with remote radios and autopilot in a Turbo Super Viking, hot rod Mooney or dolled up V-Tail Bonanza - oh hell yeah!

'Gimp
Click to expand...

That's why I've said this is going to happen for the last few years, the FAA has a mandate and desire to make NextGen happen, and this was the only way to bring down the price of the avionics required where they can demand low price point airplanes get what's required. You can't fly HITS on a 6 pack, and that's part of NextGen to help prevent CFIT.
 
jhausch said:
I ASSumed Garmin Ex stuff was more expensive. Thanks for setting me straight.
Click to expand...

Garmin set the experimental avionics world on its heads with the G3X. They have positioned themselves to be the leader in retrofitting nearly every old certified plane ( going into the new non certified category) in the country. That my friend is a lot of upside potential. :yes:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
If the cost is the same (and it is) Garmin is the strongest company. I would put Garmin in over the others in a heart beat. 3 of the 5 companies I mentioned won't be here in 10 years. There will be a lot of consolidation in the coming years.

Think resale.
Click to expand...

Why would a purchaser of a commodity worry about the fate of a company past their purchase's warranty period? If Garmin had been so inexpensive all this time, how did all those companies like GRT, MGL, Dynon, etc. come to exist?

In commodity electronics it seems the major players have come and gone and switched positions over the years from countries around the world - Sony, Samsung, LG, GE, RCA, NEC, etc. So there is no reason to believe that Garmin will become dominate simply on brand alone, or that it will actually decide to stay in the market if the pricing stays low and goes lower. Witness Piper and Cessna in the LSA market - they should have dominated on brand name and competitive pricing alone and look what happened.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Why would a purchaser of a commodity worry about the fate of a company past their purchase's warranty period? If Garmin had been so inexpensive all this time, how did all those companies like GRT, MGL, Dynon, etc. come to exist?

In commodity electronics it seems the major players have come and gone and switched positions over the years from countries around the world - Sony, Samsung, LG, GE, RCA, NEC, etc. So there is no reason to believe that Garmin will become dominate simply on brand alone, or that it will actually decide to stay in the market if the pricing stays low and goes lower. Witness Piper and Cessna in the LSA market - they should have dominated on brand name and competitive pricing alone and look what happened.
Click to expand...

Support of the product. Remember Blue Mountain? You are not buying a disposable TV, you are buying a new panel in an airplane that costs upwards of $2OK.

Piper, Cessna, & Cirrus all brought overpriced and inferior products to the market.
 
Ron Levy said:
When I see the NPRM in response to this Act, I'll be able to think about it. Until then, it's just like the photos on the pilot certificate (which Congress required ten years ago but haven't happened yet), or the PBOR (the only effect of which that I've noticed is another paper to sign before taking a practical test).
Click to expand...

True. What does one do about a Federal Agency breaking the law? Doesn't appear AOPA nor EAA care.
 
Geico266 said:
The Garmin G3X system is extremely competitive, if not cheaper. . ;)

What would most certified guy want in their panels GRT, MGL, Advanced, Dynon or Garmin? If the cost is the same (and it is) Garmin is the strongest company. I would put Garmin in over the others in a heart beat. 3 of the 5 companies I mentioned won't be here in 10 years. There will be a lot of consolidation in the coming years.

Think resale.
Click to expand...

Strongest at what? Buying other companies and killing them? They're using the same chipsets as everyone else and they killed the best user interface ever in a competitor's product for their own when they bought them.

They're the IBM of the GPS world. They stopped innovating long ago and are just copying anyone who nips at their heels.
 
Ron Levy said:
When I see the NPRM in response to this Act, I'll be able to think about it. Until then, it's just like the photos on the pilot certificate (which Congress required ten years ago but haven't happened yet), or the PBOR (the only effect of which that I've noticed is another paper to sign before taking a practical test).
Click to expand...

:confused::confused::confused: That was done a couple of years ago I thought, the rewrite is done, congress has given it the thumbs up, all that's left is the Presidents signature.
 
Henning said:
:confused::confused::confused: That was done a couple of years ago I thought, the rewrite is done, congress has given it the thumbs up, all that's left is the Presidents signature.
Click to expand...

The Bill mandating the regulatory changes may not have direct regulatory wording in it. (Most don't, I haven't read this one.) They usually authorize/mandate the Agency change the regs, but changing the regs still requires seine write the regulation changes, and those must be put through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking process for public comment before final implementation.

FCC is similar. That's why Lightsquared did all their silliness on " experimental " spectrum grants. They knew if the actual spectrum grant hit the NPRM process, they'd be fried by the commercial GPS industry. It took DoD saying, "knock it off" to even slow them down since GPS is in DoD spectrum anyway.
 
denverpilot said:
The Bill mandating the regulatory changes may not have direct regulatory wording in it. (Most don't, I haven't read this one.) They usually authorize/mandate the Agency change the regs, but changing the regs still requires seine write the regulation changes, and those must be put through the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking process for public comment before final implementation.

FCC is similar. That's why Lightsquared did all their silliness on " experimental " spectrum grants. They knew if the actual spectrum grant hit the NPRM process, they'd be fried by the commercial GPS industry. It took DoD saying, "knock it off" to even slow them down since GPS is in DoD spectrum anyway.
Click to expand...

It's already been done and written, I read it within the last couple of weeks.
 
Henning said:
It's already been done and written, I read it within the last couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

Cool. Like Ron said, watch for the NPRM comment period announcement. They can sit on it and never do it and Congress has no redress other than to shutter FAA and authorize a new one. They can make it uncomfortable for the Administrator or even appoint a new one, but they can't force FAA to publish.

We would all like to think they can... But there's no laws that I'm aware of that would put any consequences on a Federal Agency ignoring the Act by claiming that they're "still working on publishing the desired regulatory changes" indefinitely or until Congress superseded the first Act with a second. Congress can pull funding, that's their nuclear option.
 
denverpilot said:
They can make it uncomfortable for the Administrator or even appoint a new one, but they can't force FAA to publish.
Click to expand...

FAA is Executive Branch. Congress has no direct control -- they can pass laws which the FAA is supposed to follow, and they can cut FAA funding, but that's about it.

That said, I can't think of a time that the FAA has thumbed their nose at Congress, and I figure if there's any impetus on this, the FAA will follow through. In many ways, it will make their job easier, while at the same time giving them the opportunity to brag about having helped save GA.
 
denverpilot said:
None of the aviation press seems to be talking about this. I had no idea. I thought it was all for and about the regular certification process.
Click to expand...
it's all over AOPA and EAA and GAN.
They must be scared of where advertising revenues are headed. If there really is a Private / Non-Commercial category created in the U.S., that's the biggest news in aviation in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top