Part 23 Reform

Holly crap, you want these guys to go to AOPA to read?? after all the bad mouth they've done?
 
From the article

The rule will be effective eight months from publication in the Federal Register.

have you seen it yet.. :(
 
Tom-D said:
Holly crap, you want these guys to go to AOPA to read?? after all the bad mouth they've done?
Click to expand...
We can't all have the sunny disposition and open mind that you do Tom!

(yes - that's sarcasm)
 
Tom-D said:
From the article

The rule will be effective eight months from publication in the Federal Register.

have you seen it yet.. :(
Click to expand...
So what do you think tom? Are you thinking this is intended to let the little guys designing new frames/ systems have a chance? Or more along the lines of letting otherwise unairworthy planes fly, allowing big companies use low cost, dangerous equipment to make a bigger profit, I can't see through this one...
 
There's so much doubletalk in all the quotes about this change, I haven't been able to figure out what they actually accomplished.

I don't see it lowering the price of aircraft or avionics considerably though. Seems like it's swapping one type of expensive paperwork bureaucracy for a different one, as best as I can tell.
 
denverpilot said:
There's so much doubletalk in all the quotes about this change, I haven't been able to figure out what they actually accomplished.

I don't see it lowering the price of aircraft or avionics considerably though. Seems like it's swapping one type of expensive paperwork bureaucracy for a different one, as best as I can tell.
Click to expand...
:yeahthat: Exactly, I hope that some good comes of this, but I can't see what it's all about so far.
 
I'm betting that aircraft certified under the old 3 CFAR (like the cherokee) will not have the certification basis upgraded to the new Part 23.
 
denverpilot said:
There's so much doubletalk in all the quotes about this change, I haven't been able to figure out what they actually accomplished.

I don't see it lowering the price of aircraft or avionics considerably though. Seems like it's swapping one type of expensive paperwork bureaucracy for a different one, as best as I can tell.
Click to expand...

What this does is let manufacturers design and build based on an ANSI/ASTM type standard rather than the arcane FAA certification requirements. It will be written by a committee of industry experts, and will be continually reviewed and updated by the committee rather than the FAA. The ANSI committee will be able to review and update their standards much more easily to conform to industry knowledge and advances in technology. I haven't studied the new industry proposed standard, but the switch to performance based standards means that the requirements will require a design that achieves a certain performance criterion (e.g. "build a wing that can withstand 5.0 Gs) rather than a mandate about exactly to build it, regardless of whether it can be done a different way that results in a stronger, lighter wing. I am sure that's a terrible example, but you get the idea.

Edit: As an example, the new reg for flying in icing conditions states:

(a) The airplane must be shown to operate safely, as appropriate for the icing conditions; and

(b) There must be a means to avoid, or to detect and safely exit, those icing conditions for which certification is not requested.
​
The ANSI/ASTM and/or any other standard found acceptable by the FAA will provide the details on how this is done. The ANSI/ASTM committee in theory can adapt more quickly to changing technology than the FAA can, which has to do the whole NPRM process to change anything.
 
Last edited:
midcap said:
so does this mean cost effective avionics for everyone?
Click to expand...

No. This does not include the proposal to allow putting in non-certified equipment into legacy aircraft. This is just about trying to get new aircraft to market cheaper while (hopefully) not sacrificing safety.
 
the change product rule has been around for a while now....this doesn't change that.

....and it's CAR 3 not 3 CFAR. :lol:
 
PPC1052 said:
What this does is let manufacturers design and build based on an ANSI/ASTM type standard rather than the arcane FAA certification requirements. It will be written by a committee of industry experts, and will be continually reviewed and updated by the committee rather than the FAA. The ANSI committee will be able to review and update their standards much more easily to conform to industry knowledge and advances in technology. I haven't studied the new industry proposed standard, but the switch to performance based standards means that the requirements will require a design that achieves a certain performance criterion (e.g. "build a wing that can withstand 5.0 Gs) rather than a mandate about exactly to build it, regardless of whether it can be done a different way that results in a stronger, lighter wing. I am sure that's a terrible example, but you get the idea.

Edit: As an example, the new reg for flying in icing conditions states:

(a) The airplane must be shown to operate safely, as appropriate for the icing conditions; and

(b) There must be a means to avoid, or to detect and safely exit, those icing conditions for which certification is not requested.
​
The ANSI/ASTM and/or any other standard found acceptable by the FAA will provide the details on how this is done. The ANSI/ASTM committee in theory can adapt more quickly to changing technology than the FAA can, which has to do the whole NPRM process to change anything.
Click to expand...

All of that sounds like swapping one giant expensive committee for another. I guess it'll help somebody, but I doubt it'll be GA?
 
midcap said:
so does this mean cost effective avionics for everyone?
Click to expand...
no... but it does allow you to Add an EFIS, in any empty hole as a minor alteration. It does allow you to use an LED light bulb as a replacement for incandescent bulb.
minor stuff like that with out getting a field approval.

At least that's my take on it.
 
Hopefully it's a start,to smarter ,better products ,to replace outdated products.
 
The problem with "built to ASTM" standards is the mfg. gets to tell you how to maintain "their" part...
Case in point: every 5 years Flight Design says you have to remove and replace all hoses fwf. No Iran, no I''ve only flown it 150 hours, nothing. They play cya, you pay.

The part 23 re write and the medical reform pos are proof positive of the old saying:"A giraffe is a horse designed by a government committee".

JMPO. Chris
 
I stopped paying attention to this POS non-difference "re-write" when they shelved "primary non-commercial" from the implementation language, with impunity.

The wretched way this legislation went down, between the time of Presidential signing to the actual and purposely delayed implementation, finally convinced me that they plain don't want us fully-depreciated low-value legacy piston recreational owners in the sky at all. About the only reason we still do so is because enough of the flight training demographic's special interest overlaps our own part 91 equipment's maintenance and parts market. That's it. The day airline training in this Country goes ab initio/MPL zero-to-hero all in a cat D simulator, we working class pilot owners are toast.
 
PPC1052 said:
No. This does not include the proposal to allow putting in non-certified equipment into legacy aircraft. This is just about trying to get new aircraft to market cheaper while (hopefully) not sacrificing safety.
Click to expand...
Tom-D said:
no... but it does allow you to Add an EFIS, in any empty hole as a minor alteration. It does allow you to use an LED light bulb as a replacement for incandescent bulb.
minor stuff like that with out getting a field approval.

At least that's my take on it.
Click to expand...

That's pretty cool...any plane I buy is going to be old so it would be nice to get some newer stuff in the cockpit with out spending 100k dollars.
 
midcap said:
That's pretty cool...any plane I buy is going to be old so it would be nice to get some newer stuff in the cockpit with out spending 100k dollars.
Click to expand...
From what I read, the new rules mention adding non safety items, it does not say replacing items on the production certificate.
I do not believe this will allow you to remove your primary flight instruments and replace them with say a dynon system on a log book sign off.

JMHO :
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top