Source: http://sportpilottalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3804
Timestamp: 2018-11-21 14:04:16
Document Index: 115383914

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 23', 'art 23', 'art 23', 'art 23', 'art 23', 'art 23', 'art 23', 'art 23', 'art 23', 'art 23', 'art 23']

FAA Says Part 23 Delay 2 Years - Sport Pilot Talk
Postby CTLSi » Wed Sep 03, 2014 7:24 pm
Last edited by CTLSi on Mon Dec 01, 2014 10:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Postby Jack Tyler » Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:51 am
Interesting write-up. Thanks for that.
"Some are waiting for the Part 23 rewrite so we can lineup for exciting new aircraft."
The two - new certification of a specific a/c model and the Part 23 rewrite - are not tied together. FD could e.g. certify the C4 under the existing rule, and in fact a 2017 'possible' rule issuance might be enough of a delay for companies to proceed with certification so as not to lose market share and/or to increase revenue, more painful tho' it might be. So keep your eye on a queue forming...
Here are the comments made by Gilligan to Congress which I found most interesting (emphasis added):
""The schedule is somewhat slower than what the legislation had envisioned," she told subcommittee members. "The final rule is right now planned for December 2017. That is later than the statute that called for a final rule by December 2015, but again, first the complexity of writing the rule and then getting it published for notice and comment … will take a considerably longer time than was anticipated in the statute."
Two takeaways: 1. The December 2017 date isn't one the FAA is now committing to. When compared to their adamant claim the ADS-B implementation date will not be changed under any circumstances, this Dec 2017 date sounds like it was selected with crossed fingers. They are just 'planning' for it - right now, in Sep 2014. Expect a further delay. And 2. Despite many promises for simplification, it's the 'complexity' of the rule that is blamed for delaying it. I'm sure the removal of some and streamlining of other rule language doesn't mean the revised rule will be 'simple' in absolute terms. But pleading forgiveness because of its complexity is concerning to me, given what the FAA's mandate is re: simplification.
Is it any wonder why the President of GAMA used this as Exhibit A in how the FAA plagues the aviation industry? Is it any wonder why AOPA and EAA are keeping pressure on the FAA and DOT - both directly and via Congress - to get on with the business of publishing the 3rd Class medical NPRM in the Federal Register?
Postby FastEddieB » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:02 am
CTLSi wrote: Some are waiting for the Part 23 rewrite so we can lineup for exciting new aircraft.
My totally unsolicited advice would be to buy the plane available now that fits your needs and floats your boat*.
In aviation, waits are nearly always far longer than expected and products actually delivered often fall far short of what is promised.
One can wait and wait and then find oneself unable to fly - especially true if one is 60+.
"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" may apply here.
*I bought my demo Cirrus because I did not want to wait for the Diesel Diamond TwinStar. Boy, am I glad I did!
Postby MrMorden » Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:07 am
Agreed, Aviation is somewhat like the opposite of computer hardware. There is always something much better coming. In computers you should wait for it because the life cycle is so short and the cost difference is tiny, in aviation you should NOT wait for it because the life cycle is so long and the cost difference is huge.
Postby ct4me » Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:13 am
You can view the whole hearing Here...
What I remember hearing was that the delay was due to having to change the "culture of the FAA", and that their workforce was highly unionized and the unions were fighting certain provisions of the mandate, specifically job accountability.
Saying it's a "complexity" issue is a smokescreen.... they are fighting "change"
Postby Jack Tyler » Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:48 pm
I agree, Tim. That's the fundamental tension between changes being driven by technical innovation (e.g. drones in the NAS), the rules no longer fitting commercial realities (this issue), habitual rejections of safety recommendations from the NTSB and rules for rules' sake (3rd class medical being an example) on the one hand and the intransigence being demonstrated by the FAA to its various publics on the other.
My prediction is that this is closer to the beginning of a conversation about the deadline for simplifying Part 23 rules than it is towards closure.
The FAA of this decade seems to have perfected the art of building a stick with which others then beat it repeatedly. Huerta is a professional bureaucrat who, at this point, is at the pinnacle of his career...but he's also a mere mortal. I sometimes find myself wondering just how this guy manages to get up and go to the office yet another day.
Postby CTLSi » Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:40 pm
Postby drseti » Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:06 pm
CTLSi wrote: Unions are so destructive.
Beware sweeping generalizations. This is about as valid as saying "corporations are evil" or "capitalists are greedy."
Postby CTLSi » Thu Sep 04, 2014 2:26 pm
Postby sandpiper » Thu Sep 04, 2014 3:58 pm
I can't see that unions have much to do with this. But, I can be convinced.
Postby Merlinspop » Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:28 pm
sandpiper wrote: I can't see that unions have much to do with this. But, I can be convinced.
You'd be surprised how deeply involved the govt worker's unions are and how they can slow things terribly. I work at a different govt agency and the union holds up everything. Simple upgrades to software requires months and months of meetings with them, and if there's the slightest change to the GUI, days of paid time for training. It's maddening.
Postby Jack Tyler » Fri Sep 05, 2014 1:18 pm
"Man, I hate unions. If [the FAA claim is] true, this really ties it. Unions are so destructive."
Let's see... Management is offering the opinion that it's the unions which are slowing organizational change. Gee, there's an impartial observation. Let's be sure to interpret that as proof of an opinion we already hold. (Even better, it's THE FAA that's saying unions are obstructing change. Now THAT is rich...)
I always know I'm getting the inside scoop when I hear it from a Blogger.
Postby CTLSi » Fri Sep 05, 2014 2:32 pm
Postby Jack Tyler » Mon Sep 08, 2014 5:04 am
For those following this issue, here's a response from GAMA's President - as reported by AVweb this morning - about the testimony wherein an FAA manager explained they will miss their legislatively mandated Part 23 rules revision by several years. My thought: Good for Pete Bunce. (For those who don't know of Pete, he started out as a F-15 driver and, for his last USAF assignment, was the Air Force's liaison to Congress, not an insignificant responsibility and one that gave him an intimate understanding of how Congress 'is supposed to work'. He didn't just work his way up some manufacturer's management ladder).
"Last July, an FAA spokesperson gave stunning testimony before Congress—she said that the FAA was going to miss its December 2015 deadline for the rewrite of FAR Part 23 to simplify small aircraft certification by at least two years. As would be expected, the aviation community expressed its fury. Members of Congress sent letters to the FAA demanding that it comply with the law—and it wasn’t just any law. In 2013, a time of massive acrimony between the political parties in Congress, the Small Airplane Revitalization Act was passed unanimously by both houses and was signed by the president. It recognized the massive delays and costs—without any safety benefits—caused by the FAA’s hidebound aircraft certification regulations and practices and directed the FAA to rewrite Part 23 of the FARs to streamline certification of smaller aircraft. It gave the FAA a hard deadline—the end of December 2015. Members of Congress and the aviation industry expressed anger that the FAA’s internal dysfunction was so bad that it not only couldn’t meet FAR deadlines, it couldn’t meet one specifically mandated by law; that failure is expected to cost the industry millions. When this writer asked FAA Administrator Huerta at his EAA AirVenture press conference why FAA offices seem incapable of acting within deadlines established by either the FARs or Congress, Huerta refused to answer other than to say that it was important to get things right the first time and praised the hard work of FAA employees.
Since July, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), Congress and industry have continued to press the FAA to act within the law. In an interview with Pete Bunce, president of GAMA, yesterday, Bunce said that GAMA, manufacturers and Congress are not going to let the issue rest. He said that the Part 23 rewrite was mandated in a stand-alone bill, not something tacked onto other legislation at the last minute—it’s important that the “FAA take it seriously and get it done.” He pointed out that the legislation is clear that the rewrite will improve safety, which is precisely what the FAA is supposed to do. Bunce said that the industry “has done its part and delivered all that the FAA needs to publish a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) just after first of next year.” Bunce also said everyone recognizes that the FAA will have to get the revised Part 23 through the rule-making process, which takes time, and that means the FAA must get the NPRM out right after the first of the year."
It's hard to know what if any impact this kind of response from the GA industry will have, but at least it keeps some attention on the FAA's unwillingness to change. Guess my tea leaf readings (earlier in the thread) might be coming true: the FAA testimony might be more the beginning of a dialogue on this issue than the end. I surely do hope so, for the sake of GA health generally and for those of us flying and maintaining small aircraft specifically.
The C4 unaffected, apparently...
Postby Jack Tyler » Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:37 am
Here's one manufacturer's reaction to the delay announced by the FAA, as reported in today's AVweb Flash:
"While the FAA's expected revisions to Part 23 have raised hopes in the general aviation community that new aircraft will be certified at twice the speed and half the cost, two manufacturers with new airplanes in the pipeline told AVweb this week that even if those regulations are delayed beyond the mandated December 2015 deadline, they will keep moving forward. "The C4 will be certified first in Europe," said Tom Peghiny, president of Flight Design USA. The new aircraft, which has often been cited as the "poster plane" for the expected positive impacts of the pending new regulations, will be certified through the EASA ELA (European Light Aircraft) protocol, using the current EASA CS-23 standard. FAA approval then can be sought under EASA/FAA reciprocity agreements. "We can apply as part of our C4 certification package with the FAA for relief for different items (example the Garmin Vision Touch Panel) on a case-by-case basis," Peghiny said. Pipistrel, which is working on the four-seat Panthera design, also said it won't be held back by the FAA."