FAA part 23 revamp – good or bad?

April 3, 2016

AIRCRAFT QUESTIONThis month the FAA released their draft of the new part 23 regulations.  The reformulation of the regulations was prompted by the increasing cost of part 23 aircraft certification programs. It is true that the certification cost of part 23 programs has been increasing, it is also true that the cost of these certification programs has been increasing disproportionately to the increase in the complexity of the safety standards.

It is my experience that the interpretation of the existing regulations by the FAA has been getting progressively more conservative and cautious
regardless of the change to the wording of the regulations. Changing the wording of the regulations is going to do little to encourage as less conservative interpretation and is likely to increase the anxiety level of FAA staff and, understandably, their caution in making a finding of compliance.

What do you think is the solution? Do I have it wrong? Are the FAA doing the right thing?


AA SEZC Banner #6

To try our free Stress Analysis Engineering Spreadsheets click below

FREE ANALYSIS SPREADSHEETS 3

To try our Add-in for Microsoft Excel for Windows click below

XL-Viking 2

Have A Comment On This Article? Post It Here.

Comments are moderated and will not be published until approved. Your email address will be kept confidential. Please review our Comment Policy before posting your comment.

*

4 Comments on "FAA part 23 revamp – good or bad?"

  • Climate change is only my gut feeling of Malaysian Airlines plane crash. As you may have followed, the aircraft is assumed to have climbed up at a higher climb rate than it should’ve with a very “senior” pilot onboard. So, it just feels like with all the global warming, arctics melting and other things happening around the world, the statics of the weather around the world is going through some dynamic phase at some level currently. It is just a gut feeling. Not very knowledgeable in weather data. In the end, every assumption that the airplanes are sized for are coming from historical data. It might somehow not be compatible with the global warming version of the atmosphere.. (just a thought)

    • The atmospheric conditions (steady state or dynamic) if they were caused by anthropogenic climate influence would almost certainly be within the normal operating conditions for the aircraft.
      When you read what the climate scientists publish rather than what politicians or media say, the climate issue is very unlikely to create an atmospheric condition that would ‘fool’ an experienced pilot into doing something foolish or fatal.
      The update in the regulations are not intended to mitigate the possible/potential increased flight risk due to climate change.

      Interesting thought though.

  • Don’t have much experience on Part 23, but being familiar with Part 25, there might be 2 reasons:
    1-) Increasing the amount of money in circulation for such simple certification. The previously FAA approved aircraft are already in service and are flying without any recall from their manufacturers (haven’t heard of any recalls online recently),
    2-) The climate change is leading to more severe weather conditions and it is expected to get worse, so FAA is trying to secure this end..

    • I agree that companies are willing to spend more on certification than they should and they could reduce their spend.
      With regard to climate change………?

Previous Post -