Bill to Simplify Certification Passes Congress

[denverpilot]

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.

Didn't Ron list two with a third on the way, this being a fourth nose-thumbing?

 

[RotorAndWing]

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.

And in many ways, worse.

Given the propensity of pilots to "take a mile if they get an inch" you will see all sorts of bastardizations occur. Put a rule out that says "you can do this" and someone will try to interpret it to mean something totally different.

 

[JeffDG]

Well, if the rules referenced have been written already, there's this in the bill:

(a) In General- Not later than December 15, 2015, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue a final rule--

 

[Geico266]

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.

While all of that may be true, they are still the strongest company with the best market position and name recognition to lead the retro fit parade when it comes.

 

[Geico266]

And in many ways, worse.

Given the propensity of pilots to "take a mile if they get an inch" you will see all sorts of bastardizations occur. Put a rule out that says "you can do this" and someone will try to interpret it to mean something totally different.

Nice to know you have such faith in the flying public. Ever think this is what is wrong with the FAA?

I think it is funny that same usual negative people here read the law and accompanying docs and say "that will never happen". The same people who proclaimed GPS is a fad, paper charts will always be here and, LSA will never survive.

Geez guys, I would like to say "Let's get with the program." But, these same negative people would just cling to their paper charts.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Nice to know you have such faith in the flying public. Ever think this is what is wrong with the FAA?

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.

 

[bullwinkle]

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.

Will this apply to LSA as well, or only part 23 aircraft? If not it will be funny, "certified" airplanes will have more latitude than non-certified LSA...

 

[Henning]

And in many ways, worse.

Given the propensity of pilots to "take a mile if they get an inch" you will see all sorts of bastardizations occur. Put a rule out that says "you can do this" and someone will try to interpret it to mean something totally different.

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.

 

[Skylane81E]

This is a huge advantage.

This bill is good news for GA.

It's key, if you are forever stuck as a non comercial it will have a negative affect on value, but if all it needs is the non certificated stuff stripped out and an annual to fly for pay...

 

[Geico266]

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.

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.

 

[Everskyward]

It's key, if you are forever stuck as a non comercial it will have a negative affect on value, but if all it needs is the non certificated stuff stripped out and an annual to fly for pay...

But I can see that stripping out all the non-certified stuff and putting certified back in will be costly. So if you want to go the non-certified route you should probably be pretty sure you don't want to go back.

 

[poadeleted20]

True. What does one do about a Federal Agency breaking the law? Doesn't appear AOPA nor EAA care.

I see no basis for your conclusion in the last sentence. Can you share anything official from them to that effect?

As for your second sentence, the FAA is not breaking the law -- they're following it. In the bill requiring photos on pilot certificates, Congress failed to provide funding to do it. It is illegal for a Federal agency to spend money on something for which Congress has not allocated funds even if Congress has created such an unfunded mandate. Go dig in a book on government to learn more about the authorization and appropriation process.

 

[poadeleted20]

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.

Another example is the UAV business. Congress passed a law a year or two ago which more or less told the FAA to do something to let everyone who wants to fly a UAV around do so. The FAA went back to their basic mandate to keep things safe and began a very long and careful study on how to do that safely -- a project currently running, but pretty much stagnated by slow progress on the fundamental "sense/detect-and-avoid" issue (the UAV equivalent of "see and avoid"). It will eventually result in some sort of rule set for UAV operations, but I'm pretty sure it won't be nearly as loose as folks like local police and TV stations seemed to want it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Well, if the rules referenced have been written already, there's this in the bill:

(a) In General- Not later than December 15, 2015, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall issue a final rule--

Congress can set a deadline, but if they don't give the FAA enough time to make the rule meet the fundamental safety standards Congress mandated in the Federal Aviation Act, the rule which comes out is going to be far more restrictive than Congress may have wanted. In any event, I'm pretty sure it will be far more restrictive than what many folks here seem to think it's going to be.

 

[poadeleted20]

Meh, there's been a long standing sample in Ex AB showing that isn't a major issue,

That statement is directly contradicted by the accident statistics. The E-AB accident rate is staggeringly higher than Standard category aircraft, with no real signs of getting better. This is a high-interest item to AFS-800 as briefed to me Saturday at my annual FAASTeam Rep training. LSA's also have a disproportionately high accident rate, although not quite as high as E-AB's. You can be sure that what they find in those accidents will be grist for the ARC mill in implementing the law under discussion when it comes to consensus standards and uncertified alterations of aircraft.

 

[JeffDG]

I see no basis for your conclusion in the last sentence. Can you share anything official from them to that effect?

As for your second sentence, the FAA is not breaking the law -- they're following it. In the bill requiring photos on pilot certificates, Congress failed to provide funding to do it. It is illegal for a Federal agency to spend money on something for which Congress has not allocated funds even if Congress has created such an unfunded mandate. Go dig in a book on government to learn more about the authorization and appropriation process.

Congress does not line-item set every item in the FAA's budget. Much of the FAA's budget is discretionary in terms of precisely where the Administrator decides to spend those funds. Otherwise, the FAA would need to have a Congressional appropriation for each certificate they print and send out.

If Congress mandates that the FAA shall do something, but has not appropriated specific funds for that mandate, then such mandate must be met by the FAA from such discretionary line-items in the budget. Lack of specific appropriation does not change the fact that the FAA is not in compliance with the law.

 

[poadeleted20]

Congress does not line-item set every item in the FAA's budget. Much of the FAA's budget is discretionary in terms of precisely where the Administrator decides to spend those funds. Otherwise, the FAA would need to have a Congressional appropriation for each certificate they print and send out.

If Congress mandates that the FAA shall do something, but has not appropriated specific funds for that mandate, then such mandate must be met by the FAA from such discretionary line-items in the budget. Lack of specific appropriation does not change the fact that the FAA is not in compliance with the law.

The FAA cannot spend money it hasn't been authorized to spend and they already have serious budget shortfalls. There is no money in the FAA's budget for this. Ain't happening until Congress gives them more money earmarked for this project.

 

[hindsight2020]

Jesus, who called Debbie Downer into the thread. Sure, let's keep GA safe and certified...and dead.

 

[PPC1052]

TThe E-AB accident rate is staggeringly higher than Standard category aircraft, with no real signs of getting better.

Are there any paterns in these accidents worthy of note? Are these accidents disproportionately the result of poor build techniques, or faulty non-certified equipement, or something else entirely?

 

[PPC1052]

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?

I realize that sounds like an argumentative question. I don't mean it to be. I would really like to know what others think, even if to the contrary.

 

[Cruiser]

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?

I realize that sounds like an argumentative question. I don't mean it to be. I would really like to know what others think, even if to the contrary.

Of course not, but how do you write a specification to separate the good intentions from the bad ones? You can't, so we have a very high standard for all.
Seems this new category will agree with you.

 

[SoloEqs]

Didn't Ron list two with a third on the way, this being a fourth nose-thumbing?

I guess if you figure that what Ron pointed out was of any real importance. They look to me like minor housekeeping stuff. I don't much care about yet another photo, and don't know anyone else who does.

This is a MAJOR change, and a LOT of people are looking for this. Many of those are with the FAA.

 

[SoloEqs]

Nice to know you have such faith in the flying public. Ever think this is what is wrong with the FAA?

EVERYBODY pushes limits. Drive down the highway at the posted speed limit sometime, and see how many others are running 5 - 8 MPH over the limit -- because most folks figure that the citations begin at 10 over.

 

[jbarrass]

The FAA cannot spend money it hasn't been authorized to spend and they already have serious budget shortfalls. There is no money in the FAA's budget for this. Ain't happening until Congress gives them more money earmarked for this project.

JeffDG is completely correct. The FAA could fund this out of their base funding by simply cutting something else out. There is no restriction on doing so. It's Bureaucratic inertia says all the existing funds are essential and they can't do anything new without more money. We all have a long list of waste in the FAA but they don't accept the idea that there is anything they can live without.

This new rule frees up base funding for more initiatives and is good. All good. You don't have to participate and the installation of good (but non-FAA certified) avionics is a great example of how this makes things better....

 

[SoloEqs]

But I can see that stripping out all the non-certified stuff and putting certified back in will be costly. So if you want to go the non-certified route you should probably be pretty sure you don't want to go back.

Why will it be costly?

It's not like anyone would BUY that old junk that you replace with the post-1945 technology stuff. So you will toss it in a box and hang onto it, knowing that you might want to put it back in someday.

 

[Everskyward]

Why will it be costly?

It's not like anyone would BUY that old junk that you replace with the post-1945 technology stuff. So you will toss it in a box and hang onto it, knowing that you might want to put it back in someday.

That is assuming that the installation requires no other modification of the panel or wiring. Also if the reason you took the old stuff out is because it was not working, it still would not be working.

 

[SoloEqs]

That is assuming that the installation requires no other modification of the panel or wiring. Also if the reason you took the old stuff out is because it was not working, it still would not be working.

You're flying around with old stuff that DOESN'T WORK???

If you have to do a major change to the panel, you will probably take out the old panel and put in a new one (remember, you will be able to make your own, it will no longer be a multi-thousand-dollar piece of aluminum). Don't throw it away.

If it's not a major change, you will be able to put the original junk back in. I would expect to see guys making kits to adapt the old radio racks to the new electronics. This sounds like a perfect job for Weird Jim -- a little hardware and a new wiring adapter, and away you go.

Since they haven't decided what the dividing line will be between go-fly and gotta-be-certified, we don't know why anyone would WANT to go back to the original rule, but I'm going to assume that it will be actual commercial operation -- and might not even include instruction (you can learn to fly in E-AB or E-LSA).

 

[wsuffa]

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!

Not so fast. Don't know about the Viking, but I suspect that most Bo's and most later Mooneys are well over the 2700 pound limit. My Commander's max gross is over the 2700 limit - does me no good at all.

And in many ways, worse.

Given the propensity of pilots to "take a mile if they get an inch" you will see all sorts of bastardizations occur. Put a rule out that says "you can do this" and someone will try to interpret it to mean something totally different.

Frankly, after some of the crap I've seen doen by avionics shops using certified personnel, I'm not sure it will be so bad. Yes, there will be cases where things get done wrong, but that exists even today in both certifed and EAB markets.

JeffDG is completely correct. The FAA could fund this out of their base funding by simply cutting something else out. There is no restriction on doing so. It's Bureaucratic inertia says all the existing funds are essential and they can't do anything new without more money. We all have a long list of waste in the FAA but they don't accept the idea that there is anything they can live without.

This new rule frees up base funding for more initiatives and is good. All good. You don't have to participate and the installation of good (but non-FAA certified) avionics is a great example of how this makes things better....

"Dear Congress: we could do this if we had user fees, otherwise we will have to delay it for several years".

 

[Henning]

Not so fast. Don't know about the Viking, but I suspect that most Bo's and most later Mooneys are well over the 2700 pound limit. My Commander's max gross is over the 2700 limit - does me no good at all.



Frankly, after some of the crap I've seen doen by avionics shops using certified personnel, I'm not sure it will be so bad. Yes, there will be cases where things get done wrong, but that exists even today in both certifed and EAB markets.



"Dear Congress: we could do this if we had user fees, otherwise we will have to delay it for several years".

No, most all GA recip singles EW around or below 2500lbs, and the report read "weighs <2700lbs" not "with a GW <2700lbs" as they specify when referring to gross weight.

 

[Velocity173]

Any stats out there showing glass is safer than anolog? I know NTSB did a study and proved they're no safer.

Look, we all like glass. Personally I think it's easier to use. Looks cool, pushing buttons is fun. GA isn't dying because of the cost of glass avionics though. That's just one thing of many. Cost of maintenance, gas, hanger, insurance, personal property tax, paint/interior upgrades, etc, etc. I think biggest reason is way too much time and training devoted when there are plenty of other distractions that have immediate gratification without the hassle.

I see this bill doing little to jump start GA. It will allow old planes to have a more modern looking panel, that's about it. You can put a glass panel in a C-150 but it's still just a C-150. Somehow I don't see new people staying in GA simply because of a pretty panel.

 

[AcroGimp]

I did forget about the 2700 lb limit, that would allow Mooney's up to the M20D, Commander 112B, but even the early Bo's and Vikings are too heavy.

'Gimp

 

[Henning]

I did forget about the 2700 lb limit, that would allow Mooney's up to the M20D, Commander 112B, but even the early Bo's and Vikings are too heavy.

'Gimp

Even the A36 Bo weighs in under 2500lbs. It says "weighs" not "Gross Weight". Read through the FARs and you'll see whenever they reference GW, they say Gross Weight.

 

[PPC1052]

Any stats out there showing glass is safer than anolog? I know NTSB did a study and proved they're no safer.

Look, we all like glass. Personally I think it's easier to use. Looks cool, pushing buttons is fun.

I don't really care about a glass panel. I just want modern dual nav/coms with a GPS that doesn't cost over $30,000 to install.

 

[Geico266]

That statement is directly contradicted by the accident statistics. The E-AB accident rate is staggeringly higher than Standard category aircraft, with no real signs of getting better.

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

 

[wsuffa]

No, most all GA recip singles EW around or below 2500lbs, and the report read "weighs <2700lbs" not "with a GW <2700lbs" as they specify when referring to gross weight.

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.

 

[Velocity173]

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

From the 2001-2011 NTSB study: 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.

 

[SoloEqs]

Somehow I don't see new people staying in GA simply because of a pretty panel.

No, but I can see them staying in GA if they don't have to spend as much money on general maintenance.

One guy here with a C172 recently had to replace the flange on the instrument panel through which the control yoke lock pin goes. It's made of aluminum, and it a tube about an inch long with a flat plate on the end to attach to the panel. The IA wouldn't sign off the plane on annual because it had worn and broken in 50 years of use. The owner hadn't noticed the problem, because he uses exterior locks.

Cost of flange: <$800. For just the part. Plus shipping.

PLUS the cost of the A&P to install it, bringing the total to something like $1000.

Figuring old 172s in the $30K price range, that's spending over 3% of the value of the plane for a part which consists of about a dollar worth of aluminum, a dime worth of black paint, and an hour of mechanic's time to get it installed. All that for a part which is only needed if you use the yoke lock.

The plane didn't fly for a couple of months, while he scraped up the money for this silly little part, got it installed and signed off.

Hearing about things like this keeps people from getting into GA. For several months, he was out of GA, and is seriously questioning whether to keep the plane or sell it before something else equally stupid comes up.

 

[SoloEqs]

From the 2001-2011 NTSB study: 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.

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.

 

[Everskyward]

You're flying around with old stuff that DOESN'T WORK???

If you have to do a major change to the panel, you will probably take out the old panel and put in a new one (remember, you will be able to make your own, it will no longer be a multi-thousand-dollar piece of aluminum). Don't throw it away.

If it's not a major change, you will be able to put the original junk back in. I would expect to see guys making kits to adapt the old radio racks to the new electronics. This sounds like a perfect job for Weird Jim -- a little hardware and a new wiring adapter, and away you go.

Since they haven't decided what the dividing line will be between go-fly and gotta-be-certified, we don't know why anyone would WANT to go back to the original rule, but I'm going to assume that it will be actual commercial operation -- and might not even include instruction (you can learn to fly in E-AB or E-LSA).

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.

 

[poadeleted20]

Are there any paterns in these accidents worthy of note?

Yes -- they generally involve first flights or near first flights, and lack of training in type. However, there is another disturbing trend involving unexpected flight characteristics due to variations in construction (intentional or otherwise). There's not much on how non-certified avionics play into this. On the LSA side, we've seen a lot of minor structural issues such as collapsed landing gear on landings where that would not be expected, although not catastrophic ones (other than the well-publicized Zodiac 601XL problem, which is a good example of what people fear with loosening certification standards). I suspect that at the end of the day, the insurance industry may end up being the limiting factor on people doing what many folks commenting on these issues seem to want to do (e.g., flight schools being made by their insurers to require medical certificates for their Student Sport Pilots).