Part 23 NPRM - ARC - ASTM

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,763
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
That's what happens when bureaucrats get in bed with big companies like Cessna. An inpenetrable amount of nonsense, that makes life impossible for the smaller companies.

And for all that nonsense, simple stuff, like allowing electric motors for LSA, or good safety requirements, instead of the ridiculous stuff we have now are still not possible.
 

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,109
Location
Savannah, Georgia
Forgive the observation but, after skimming that through, my impression is that this whole ASTM process is turning into a bureaucrat's paradise. Committee meetings, conclaves, symposia, outreaches, and multiple groups forming meta-groups to hash out their "common nomenclature". It's enough to make a politician or administrator believe he's died and gone to heaven.

Is anything practical actually getting done, or are we watching an even larger bureaucratic machine build and feed itself on our industry?
It looks like there's not. Revision 1 of the standard was essentially nothing more than porting over Part 23/CS 23 and combining the two, which all of them hailed as a great achievement. The only substantive change that wasn't just a clarification of confusing terms or adoption of the stricter standard between the two was that now, all airplanes must be more resistant to stall/spin and they must have an audible warning that says "Stall! Stall!"


That's what happens when bureaucrats get in bed with big companies like Cessna. An inpenetrable amount of nonsense, that makes life impossible for the smaller companies.

And for all that nonsense, simple stuff, like allowing electric motors for LSA, or good safety requirements, instead of the ridiculous stuff we have now are still not possible.
And anyone who is not an entrenched major player gets ignored. Vote negative on something, and your vote will simply be ruled "non-persuasive".


This is why I suggested a few days ago that the future of privately-owned airplanes may well be homebuilts... though as others pointed out, its probably not so much a deliberate push to that, as that's where the market will go and the regulators can't be bothered and won't care.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,643
Location
Rocky Mountains
It looks like there's not. Revision 1 of the standard was essentially nothing more than porting over Part 23/CS 23 and combining the two, which all of them hailed as a great achievement.
The PDF is primarily about F37, but I posted it here because it seems related. I don't know if you are on the F37 committee but it has been far less controlled by the big players (there were few/none to start) but has been moving in the same direction as F44.

And anyone who is not an entrenched major player gets ignored. Vote negative on something, and your vote will simply be ruled "non-persuasive".

This is the biggest flaw of the ASTM process. All the significant "work" gets done at the face to face meetings. Companies and bureaucrats with the bucks to send their minions to the meetings control the process. If ASTM would open up their proxy system to let individuals collect more than one proxy vote it might have some positive effect? IMHO the FAA and CASA should not be allowed to vote. ASTM is, or was, intended to be an INDUSTRY standards group, not a way for the FAA to cut their costs by getting us to do their grunt work.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,733
Location
Port Townsend WA
There was no effort to reduce the " means of compliance" burden.

All they are doing is a rewrite of the same rules.

I suggested that the means of compliance burden should be reduced for one or two seat airplanes.
This has not been done.
They may create something called "level one, level two, level three, etc." But as far as I know, the actual means of compliance for all levels remains the same. Just as the current Normal, Utility, Acrobatic etc. all have the same level of means of compliance.
In other words, Sport Planes won't be able to comply because the cost is too high for such limited sales potential.
Here is the proposed rule ;
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/rulemaking/recently_published/media/Revision_Airworthiness_Standards_Normal_Utility_Acrobatic_Commuter_Airplanes_NPRM.pdf

It is nice they did provide a level 1 for one seat aircraft. (At my request, perhaps)
But they ignored my request for level 1 compliance relief, from what I read here. ( only skimmed first 200 pages)
A new startup small manufacturer has virtually no chance as I see it, just as stated in the previous comment above. Kit aircraft with no FAR 23 compliance remains the only real option considering likely limited production rate and profit break even point after compliance if the market niche is only a few per year.
 
Top