Small Air Plane Revitalization Act

That's step one.Now the FAA has to get there butt in gear.
 
It's almost scary to see Congress actually doing something useful that I agree with.
 
Now if congress will appropriate the money to implement it. There are already several programs approved in the FAA but no money from congress.

No money, no program.
 
The FAA has plenty of money. And waste.

How can it not be able to write some regulations ordered by this law?

FAA%20Historical%20Budget_edited.jpg
 
I am all for simplifying the certification process and hope I see at least a little benefit to some cost savings in my aircraft.

Also, a potential lowering of the cost of new aircraft will certainly help GA over all.

Hers my concern, and I don't mean to be selfish, just practical. If new aircraft costs are reduced, what will that do to the value of most of our older aircraft? I don't see it changing the way I am operating but just curious about how it will affect the present fleet.

I would think those that purchased New in the last few years could be hurt much more.
 
tmyers said:
I am all for simplifying the certification process and hope I see at least a little benefit to some cost savings in my aircraft.

Also, a potential lowering of the cost of new aircraft will certainly help GA over all.

Hers my concern, and I don't mean to be selfish, just practical. If new aircraft costs are reduced, what will that do to the value of most of our older aircraft? I don't see it changing the way I am operating but just curious about how it will affect the present fleet.

I would think those that purchased New in the last few years could be hurt much more.
Click to expand...

A $1.1M Malibu won't be going down in price enough to make a noticeable difference in our used planes. Keep in mind this won't help liability, just certification. The next act congress needs to pass is tort reform for GA. Then you will see prices drop significantly.

Given how depreciated our planes are now, I don't see it having a negative impact. And if it does, the theoretical benefit in reduced ownership costs will offset that. It may actually increase values if enough people decide that this makes aviation more affordable.

As far as current sales, it may hurt some, but not much. For example, Bill just decided not to put a new radio in his Mooney in part because of the potential new options in years to come. But, the cost was also way higher anyway.
 
Has anyone read the law?
Does anyone KNOW what is in it?
- Smoke and Mirrors or actual and viable bureaucratic reductions?
ie -- how is it going to reduce certification costs?
 
oldShar said:
Has anyone read the law?
Does anyone KNOW what is in it?
- Smoke and Mirrors or actual and viable bureaucratic reductions?
ie -- how is it going to reduce certification costs?
Click to expand...

It will revitalize small airplanes, it says so right in the title!!!

Don't get hung up in silly details. :wink2:
 
oldShar said:
Has anyone read the law?
Does anyone KNOW what is in it?
- Smoke and Mirrors or actual and viable bureaucratic reductions?
ie -- how is it going to reduce certification costs?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the law is simple, there is an initial draft of what the Act plan is with a link somewhere on this board, I have the PDF on my iPad, I just can't figure out how to attach it...:(
 
Henning said:
Yeah, the law is simple, there is an initial draft of what the Act plan is with a link somewhere on this board, I have the PDF on my iPad, I just can't figure out how to attach it...:(
Click to expand...

Very short/readable. Full text is here:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1848/text

The rub is that it directs the FAA to make new rules, so result of that process will determine how much of a change there is...
 

Attachments

  • revitalization.png
    revitalization.png
    92.7 KB · Views: 180
Last edited:
Telling the FAA (or any Federal Agency) to do something and having a detectable result, however related or unrelated it might be, are two different items. :rolleyes2:
 
NoHeat said:
The FAA has plenty of money. And waste.

How can it not be able to write some regulations ordered by this law?
Click to expand...

Maybe the same way it extorted the EAA for services at Oshkosh? :mad:

Not to get political... but I think for the health of this bill we all need to get involved. The first thing I'll be doing at our next Republican Executive county meeting will be thanking my local congressman and/or his staffer for signing this bill and letting him know the progress.

The FAA has some time to implement this but they need to be monitored. Hopefully AOPA will be peeking behind the curtains from time to time. I'm going to expect the best but if things start to go south, 435 inquiry letters from members of congress to the FAA might get their attention. This act really has real chance of revitalizing/reducing costs in aviation.... but the will has to be there.

As I mentioned above... the easiest way for a mere mortal to get face time with your local congress critter is to get involved in your local political machine the congressman is involved with... be it Democrat or Republican. The congressman will always have a staffer there.... get to know them. That's the easiest way to get access.
 
Have you ever heard the old saying, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
 
Dean said:
Have you ever heard the old saying, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
Click to expand...

Only thing is, the FAA wants this because it's the only way that they will be able to implement NextGen, and that IS a priority function at the FAA because that is how they are looking at handling the drone integration which is an Executive mandate on the FAA. They know that they will not be able to get all the people with $20-$50k airplanes to put $70k into their panel in order to make the plane compliant, and they know they will not get through the court and political challenges of forcing them or grounding the non compliant fleet. The economic burden that they can levee cannot be unduly burdensome. This is the measure that the FAA is taking to confront that challenge betting that industry will come out with lower priced gear after they remove the "Don't blame us, it's the cost of certification why we have to charge 10x what the thing is worth" that we have historically heard on this and similar issues.
 
Henning said:
Only thing is, the FAA wants this because it's the only way that they will be able to implement NextGen, and that IS a priority function at the FAA because that is how they are looking at handling the drone integration which is an Executive mandate on the FAA. They know that they will not be able to get all the people with $20-$50k airplanes to put $70k into their panel in order to make the plane compliant, and they know they will not get through the court and political challenges of forcing them or grounding the non compliant fleet. The economic burden that they can levee cannot be unduly burdensome. This is the measure that the FAA is taking to confront that challenge betting that industry will come out with lower priced gear after they remove the "Don't blame us, it's the cost of certification why we have to charge 10x what the thing is worth" that we have historically heard on this and similar issues.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation on your part Henning. :rolleyes2:
 
hindsight2020 said:
I buy his version of the story. What's your take on it?
Click to expand...

As stated previously, the FAA will need funding to implement. Right now Congress has other priorities. No money, no implementation.

Just like when the big push was on to put pictures on pilot certificates, the bill was passed, and everything was in place, but congress has never appropriated the funds.

While I was assigned to a FSDO my quarterly flight proficiency (4040 program) was cut to 3 hours per quarter. That's one hour per month to maintain proficiency. The NexGen program had their budget slashed and several programs were put on hold.

Follow the money. It's easy for congress to pass a bill, it's a whole 'nother thing to get them to fund it.
 
Last edited:
"intended to increase safety and reduce the certification costs of new Part 23 general aviation airplanes."

Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/news/small-airplane-revitalization-act-signed-law#R1vrAsFmi8sVmqWI.99

Well, having taught logic, there is an "and" between the two clauses. So, technically we need to do both of them. The first element is certainly doable, with a significant amount of time, effort and - well, to be blunt; lots of money. But that seems to contravene element two of the statement. Hmmmmmm. I'm betting the "and" is one of those disingenuous things that pols say.
 
docmirror said:
"intended to increase safety and reduce the certification costs of new Part 23 general aviation airplanes."

Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/news/small-airplane-revitalization-act-signed-law#R1vrAsFmi8sVmqWI.99

Well, having taught logic, there is an "and" between the two clauses. So, technically we need to do both of them. The first element is certainly doable, with a significant amount of time, effort and - well, to be blunt; lots of money. But that seems to contravene element two of the statement. Hmmmmmm. I'm betting the "and" is one of those disingenuous things that pols say.
Click to expand...

I agree. To the government, "increasing safety" always means more rules, and more rules always means higher costs, and higher costs will not revitalize the small airplane industry. Can't have both. The better way is tort reform to make people actually responsible for what they do with an airplane rather than make the manufacturer or dealer or mechanic pay for what they did.

Dan
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top