Part 23 NPRM - ARC - ASTM

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,922
Location
Port Townsend WA
A 120 kg or 264 lbs category of aircraft is next to useless as far as 2 seat airplanes are concerned. There is no way you can make a practical 2-seat training aircraft that weighs 264 lbs.
You can barely make a useful single seater with that. This particular category seems completely pointless.

And also, what is the point of creating categories based on empty aircraft weight? How many aircraft are operated empty?
I see your point, the FAR103 two- seat training exemption was 496 pounds.

But a 264 pound category is useful for the smallest one seaters. A one seat airplane should have minimum rules, since only the pilot is essentially at risk.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,717
Location
Rocky Mountains
I might join ASTM to serve on this new F37-80.
Can anyone join the sub- committee? ( or is it by appointment?)
Give ASTM their $75 per year and sign up for the committee. If you get classified as a consumer you are almost guaranteed a vote.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,717
Location
Rocky Mountains
A 120 kg or 264 lbs category of aircraft is next to useless as far as 2 seat airplanes are concerned. There is no way you can make a practical 2-seat training aircraft that weighs 264 lbs. <<>> And also, what is the point of creating categories based on empty aircraft weight?
True, it would take a pretty expensive set of materials and design to build a 2 seat plane under 120Kg. But the real significance of this is that it sets a precedent, or "gets the camels nose under the tent" as far as dividing up the standards based on weight, or some other factor. A 400Kg class of LSA with very reduced engine requirements would go a long way toward making 2 seat ultralight trainers practical

Basing the class on empty weight does have some merit compared to MTOW. Either restriction tends to reward skimping on structure to add performance or extras. Empty weight is easy to ramp check. MTOW is hard to enforce. The regulating bodies like it when things are easy for them :gig:


Edit: That 400Kg should have been 400 pounds or around 180Kg. Maybe 200Kg for nice round numbers?
 
Last edited:

Chuckellis90b

Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
17
Location
Moses Lake, WA
Perhaps I missed it in the thread, was there any discussion of moving closer to an "Owner Maintenance" category like Canada? Or, I had seen a proposal for a Type Certified Non-Commercial with maintenance requirements similar to the current Experimental Amateur-built.

Chuck
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,717
Location
Rocky Mountains
Perhaps I missed it in the thread, was there any discussion of moving closer to an "Owner Maintenance" category like Canada? Or, I had seen a proposal for a Type Certified Non-Commercial with maintenance requirements similar to the current Experimental Amateur-built.

Chuck
That was one of the original ideas. Unless it was discussed in the face to face meetings at Aero it hasn't come up yet. Keep in mind that other than voting on the bylaws the most significant thing that has been agreed upon so far is how to organize the upcoming standards within the ASTM numbering system.

Lots of progress in 6 months!
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,717
Location
Rocky Mountains
More bad news:depressed

It appears that there is a contingent within the FAA that believes that ALL future certified aircraft should be un-stallable. These factions go one step further than a placard that the plane is "not approved for spins" and want the certification process to prove that the plane can not be stalled. The only exception would be for aircraft specifically designed for aerobatics. The rationalization is that the migration of the technology needed to make aircraft un-stallable to the very basic planes is worth the cost due to the fact that the majority of injury/death is due to loss of control.

I believe that this will result in too much added expense and degraded performance. Even F. Weick expressed some doubts about the value of his stall resistant ideas with regard to overall safety. Short of the implementation of a basic FBW system to prevent stall I know of no method that has been proven to work under all conditions and mot degrade performance.

Reasonable stall resistance coupled with an AOA indicator and proper training will save more lives than the further dumbing down of the aircraft. On second though may be not. Who at the lowest rungs of aviation can afford such a plane?

Ironically the comment was made that maybe the proper place for planes that can be made to stall/spin to be certified was via the LSA standards.

Comments?

On a humorous note: The old misspelling of Angel of sideslip in place of Angle of sideslip {23.177(a)} that was part of part 23 for a long time may earn a notation in the new standards. Even though this misspelling has been known for many years it has been purposely maintained in respect for tradition.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,776
Location
Fresno, California
the majority of injury/death is due to loss of control.
Actually, the real translation for this isn't "loss of control"... it's "lack of proper training and currency".


The only exception would be for aircraft specifically designed for aerobatics.
Not all aerobatic planes can do all maneuvers... let's just call a spin 'aerobatic' and certify them all as aerobatic and limit them to spins and steep turns only in the aerobatic regime.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,717
Location
Rocky Mountains
Not all aerobatic planes can do all maneuvers... let's just call a spin 'aerobatic' and certify them all as aerobatic and limit them to spins and steep turns only in the aerobatic regime.
The thought is that there should be NO certified aerobatic planes under the new part 23. Part 23 is to be for safe transportation only - according to this faction. Imagine a car that keeps track of the friction coefficient of the road and won't let you turn the steering wheel faster than it thinks is prudent to avoid a spin. The NTSB is pushing for the implementation of things like adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitors and lane divergent warning to be standard on all cars no matter what the sticker price or gross weight. Imagine the requirement that the manual throttle be removed and this chore handed over to the adaptive cruise control 100% of the time and the steering being overridden by the lane and blind spot monitors.

There is little doubt that a fully developed autonomous vehicle will be safer than a human controlled one, but is that what we as a society really want at this point in our history considering the cost of implementation?
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,922
Location
Port Townsend WA
If the rules are made by people with no design experience, then the rules become impossible to attain, then only EA-B airplanes will exist in the future.... and of course EA-B now meet essentially no standards.

The real solution is to allow the free market to choose. It should be up to the designer to design the airplane based with any set of free market standards he chooses, then label the airplane with that standard. Who in the government knows more or can design a better plane than the designer?

By the way, I joined ASTM on may 21st. Have not received any info yet.
 
Last edited:

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
It is fundamentally impossible to make a plane un-stallable. A canard still stall with the C of G too rearwards, an accelerated load can stall an elevator-limited plane (think of a gust, steep turn, wind shear) Doing spin-training would save a considerable part of the pilots that are now dead. I've given and it'll reduce the risk of death by a quarter or so, with half an hour of spin-entry etc. If anybody would have actually cared the slightest bit about safety, a single hour of spins/stalls/aerobatics would be mandatory for a PPL.

I usually try to respond reasonable and civilized, so I won't say what I think, except that people that propose those kind of things don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about, or - as I suspect - are just covering up their own blunders.

The safest aircraft are the ones where things go "non-perfect" very quickly, but there is a broad range of "non-perfect", where there are no serious consequences. Think of a piper cub, pretty hard to fly perfect, but when you screw up a bit here and there, it'll punish you, but nothing serious.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,776
Location
Fresno, California
It doesn't matter how automated you make a vehicle.... there is always a way to trip up the programming. Case in point, the F-22 flight envelope testing at Edwards AFB (turn up the sound):

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,717
Location
Rocky Mountains
I

By the way, I joined ASTM on may 21st. Have not received any info yet.
Excellent!!

We need all of us that we can get. One of the bigest problems that I see is that there are too many on the committee that don't understand that the ASTM process is about an Industry consensus standard not an optional way to publish government edicts.
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,717
Location
Rocky Mountains
I usually try to respond reasonable and civilized, so I won't say what I think, except that people that propose those kind of things don't have the slightest clue what they're talking about, or - as I suspect - are just covering up their own blunders.
The FAA guy that mentioned this at the meeting this morning - and vigorously defended the position - is a pilot with time in several different planes and is considering building an Experimental. From private e-mails he actually seems to be on our side as far as reducing cost and making flying by the common man more ubiquitous. We just have to have a bunch of documentation and a well laid out argument if we hope to change their minds.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,765
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
The FAA guy that mentioned this at the meeting this morning - and vigorously defended the position - is a pilot with time in several different planes and is considering building an Experimental. From private e-mails he actually seems to be on our side as far as reducing cost and making flying by the common man more ubiquitous. We just have to have a bunch of documentation and a well laid out argument if we hope to change their minds.
Many power pilots (I can't prove the majority) are utterly clueless regarding spins and stalls, in fact clueless regarding many or most things relatied to aircraft design. You need engineers (preferably with some stick time), not pilots to make those decisions.
I scared the bejezus out of more than one very experienced (1000+ hrs PPL, 10K+ hrs ATPL) "pilot" by a simple, modest spin-entry. They couldn't recover the 2nd time either and would have spun to death from 1 mile up...

Safety is a simple trade-off. To make the industry safer, we should start where we can gain the most in safety for the least amount of cost, weight, complexity etc. Mandatory spin training (instead of making it illegal), fuel systems that you can NOT start with the fuel switch off, mandatory temperfoam seats are where real gains are to be found.

Making an aircraf fool-proof is foolish, since you only create better fools.
 
Last edited:

gtae07

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2012
Messages
2,122
Location
Savannah, Georgia
Since I haven't seen it mentioned yet, I found the ARC's recommendation report. I didn't see anything about being stall-proof in there (but this is just the regulatory changes, not the industry standards).

Some things I did see:

Owner Maintenance:
A recommendation to establish a "Primary Non-Commercial" category for fixed-wing non-turbine aircraft (including gliders) at least 20 years old.
Owner can maintain the aircraft with repairman's certificate (16 hour course).
Replacement parts need not be PMA/TSO
Alterations can be made w/o FAA approval, but may require Phase I testing like homebuilts.

Must observe flight manual limits and placard limits.
No commercial/for hire use, but owner can receive instruction
ADs apply like for homebuilts, but at least must be recorded even if not complied with (see below)
Must log all non-approved parts and alterations.
All ADs must be complied with before conversion

Registration becomes NC.... or "Non-Commercial" placard added (like "experimental")
Must still get condition inspection by A&P (like a homebuilt)
Non-Commercial certificate must be reissued when ownership changes
Must note N-C status in IFR flight plans
Must inform pax of N-C status

And here's the kicker:
Aircraft can be converted back to normal category with a thorough config/logbook audit, annual, removal of non-approved alterations, and so on.


One appendix also noted a better safety record for Canadian Owner-Maintained aircraft than regular ones, and speculated lower costs lead to more flying, better equipment, and more frequent maintenance.

"It is illustrative to note that in no case has the fact that the Aircraft is Owner Maintained or the use of non-certified parts been a major or contributing factor to any of the accidents listed."
"It is significant that in many of the years looked at the O-M aircraft actually had a better (safer) accident rate than the Standard Category aircraft."
"Therefore it is safe to conclude that teh Canadian O-M system has not detrimentally impacted safety and it is likely that it actually indirectly improved safety."


Cert standards:
BIG emphasis on functional performance and safety rather than method, and on alternative means of compliance. My interpretation is "Tell me what I need to do rather than how to do it". Existing guidance and standards would be a means, but not the only means, to demonstrate compliance.



Equipment (some quotes, emphasis mine):
While intuition suggests that required equipment should follow more stringent safety standards than non‐required equipment (and, indeed, this is sometimes the case), the consequence of failure of a given article is actually more important than the existence of a requirement for its installation. For example, the in‐flight failure of a required position light is essentially inconsequential – the airplane is perfectly capable of flying to its original destination without difficulty, though additional vigilance in traffic spotting and position reporting might be advised.

One noteworthy example of non‐required equipment is the handheld GPS. These have become ubiquitous over the last fifteen years or so, incorporating numerous functions (moving map display, satellite weather overlay, flight planning and navigation, terrain avoidance) that have obvious utility and potential for safety improvement. In fact, there is considerable circumstantial evidence that the use of handheld GPS units has caused a significant decline in the number of CFIT accidents in small airplanes. These units, being non‐installed, are of commercial quality and have no certification pedigree whatsoever. That owners who choose to install similar panel mount equipment should suffer an economic penalty that often runs to over $10,000 seems ridiculous.
Current guidance requires that new systems installed on older airplanes meet the same requirements as on newer airplanes. In many cases, the residual value of the older airplanes is such that the investment required to upgrade to current‐standard equipment is untenable. As a matter of basic logic, it seems appropriate that the standard applicable for installation of replacement equipment on any airplane, regardless of age, should be “at least as good as that which is being replaced.”

The existing guidance, however, fails to address the risk associated with a failure to deploy. Specifically, safety related functions may have the potential to reduce the accident rate associated with the specific
flight hazards that they address. Any risk associated with the deployment of systems that assist the pilot in avoiding specific hazards may be offset by the avoided risk to operators and their passengers associated with those hazards in the absence of the systems. Thus, an appropriate way to judge the net safety impact of a given system would be by assessing the comparative risk associated with its deployment and non‐deployment. Systems that have the potential to address hazards that are especially significant in GA (such as loss of control) would merit consideration at lesser estimated reliability (i.e., higher risk) than might be considered for less significant hazards.

Stalls/spins (recommendations):
"The airplane must demonstrate satisfactory stall characteristics in both straight and turning flight, and with sufficient stall warning to the pilot."
"(a) A single engine airplane must not have a tendency to inadvertently enter a spin. (b) If a single engine airplane cannot comply with (a), or if intentional spins are approved, it must be
demonstrated that safe recovery can be made using defined recovery procedures."
 
Last edited:

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,717
Location
Rocky Mountains
Just an update from today's F44 meeting:

I'm feeling a lot better today about the likelihood of this actually resulting in something useful. The NPRM is still scheduled for publication in 2017 but there IS a lot of work to do.

The word 'Tailoring' has been substituted for 'Tiering'. In the long run this may be better than having discrete tiers. Basically the difference is that with tailoring there is a kind of flow sheet process built in to the new standards. Time will tell if this is the right choice, but it does look like it will be workable.

A couple of comments were made that gave me hope that things are really going to change. One was "....going back to the science rather than the way we have been doing it". The other was that the FAA would like industry to go to the ASTM process first to get the standards changed when needed because the ASTM process can be so much quicker. Less work for them too;)

Rienk Ayers, another of the HBA members on the ASTM committee, broached the subject of the FAA being the elephant in the room in that they have the power to basically override any ASTM standard they didn't like. The FAA guy was real careful in how he answered. From my interpretation of his answer they would prefer to not be put in that position since they do have a duty to the general public but that basically the only "taboo" was messing with twin engine jets.

We have at least 3 HBA members on the ASTM committee. None of us are related so that gives us 3 possible official votes. That's 3 times as many as the FAA, EASA, Cessna, or Piper.
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
HBA Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
14,922
Location
Port Townsend WA
I am not sure how this tailoring will work yet. (nobody does)
My guess is: we may need to write another standard for our light one seat and light two seat category.
The jet guys at Cessna certainly won't do it for us.

Rienk's question hit the spot.
The FAA should be limited to checking the application for ASTM compliance only. If the FAA arbitrarily picks and chooses the means of compliance, certification for the low end will remain impossible, in my opinion.

p.s. There is a fourth member here. But I won't disclose, without permission.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,776
Location
Fresno, California
In my view, we've long had a 'tiered' system for pilots. Essentially, advanced ratings, such as instrument, multi-engine, etc, comprise a tiered system. In that same sense, a twin engine plane lies in a different tier than a single engine plane, and so forth. So aren't we, in essence, talking about modifying an existing tiered system rather than 'creating' a tiered system?
 

Hot Wings

Grumpy Cynic
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
7,717
Location
Rocky Mountains
p.s. There is a fourth member here. But I won't disclose, without permission.
4 of us!? Now that's a power block. If I'd known that I'd have suggested that we nominate ourselves for the officers election we just voted on and take over the process. :gig:

The FAA should be limited to checking the application for ASTM compliance only. If the FAA arbitrarily picks and chooses the means of compliance, certification for the low end will remain impossible, in my opinion.


My understanding of the way this will work is that if the plane in question actually fits within the new standards (no new or novel technology/design) than if it's shown that the ASTM standards have been met the plane gets certified. If the new tech is not covered by ASTM standards or makes one of the standards irrelevant (they used the crash protection tied to stall speed and engine failure of a twin engined airplane as not being applicable to a plane with 10 electric engines, at the meeting today*) then the manufacturer has the options of using the flowchart type process that was presented to get direct FAA approval, or go to the ASTM standards committee and get us to make accommodations in the standards.

I found it encouraging that the FAA seemed to actually prefer to use the ASTM process in cases such as this in the future.

* I know you were at the meeting today. This just added for those that aren't ASTM members.

Edit: #4 who are you? At least let Rienk and I know?
 
Last edited:
Top