Quantcast
Channel: Powered Sport Flying Magazine » Government
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 8

More Proposed FAA Policy

0
0

FAA Policy Changes: Agency Motto: This is gonna hurt you a lot more than it's gonna hurt us.OK, so this one is going to be more than a little wonky. But that is often what happens when you try to explain FAA policy. And unfortunately, just because it is a hard read, doesn’t mean this won’t be an example of terrible policy coming out of the FAA. It holds the possibility of hurting sport pilots.

To put things in perspective, the FAA of course has their regulations. But on top of those regulations, they pile on an extra helping of national policy. The policy is not really a bad idea all by itself, since it is meant to add clarity to a field FAA inspector’s life. However, when ‘policy’ starts overstepping the intent of actual regulations, there is a problem. This is that kind of problem.

The proposed policy effects everyone who owns a Special Light Sport Aircraft (SLSA) airplane, trike, glider, or powered parachute. It also effects anyone hoping to own an electric-powered experimental aircraft in the future. Because what this proposed policy does is direct FAA Safety Inspectors and Designated Airworthiness Representatives to limit those aircraft to single-place operations during day VFR and to keep them from flying over congested areas at all. In the case of SLSAs, it is when the aircraft are switched from SLSA status to Experimental Light Sport Aircraft (ELSA) status. For electric aircraft, well, the FAA is just limiting them altogether.

I’m sure you are telling yourself that the FAA must have a good reason for this. And I’m here to tell you that there isn’t a good reason that has been explained to anyone. In fact, some in the FAA believe this is just classic dumbfoolery. (They don’t say it that way of course…)

So, there are a couple of things here for you to look at if you are interested. And I hope you are interested because the FAA needs feedback so that the provisions of this ‘draft policy’ don’t become real policy. The comment period is ending quick. March 30, 2014 to be exact.

The first is a link to the 300+ glorious pages of mind-numbing FAA draft policy. That is here:

Mind-Numbing FAA Draft Policy

The link includes contact information for a Craig Holmes, who is the FAA guy who owns this fine piece of work. If you have some constructive criticism, he is the one who is requesting it.

Next, is the excerpt from the document that is causing a problem. That is not to say that the rest of the document is OK. It may just mean that no one has alerted me to other problems there. I’m sure within the 300+ pages there are more things. And honestly, this is why you should be a member of one or more aviation organizations. They have people to study this stuff and look out for your interests. But sometimes bad ideas just need the bright light of attention put on them. This is such an idea.

Anyway, here is the policy excerpt, along with the hurtful words in red…

Section 6. Light-Sport Aircraft (LSA) Category Aircraft Airworthiness Certifications
There is a simplified block table found in the appendix to be used for picking and choosing language to be used by a DAR in the
creation of operating limitations. This is where the unacceptable proposed rule changes reside.        
8130.2H Appendix C C-2
5.. Procedure.
a.. Use table C-1 below for issuing operating limitations for the following categories:
(1) 14 CFR 21.184—Primary.
(2) 14 CFR 21.185—Restricted.
(3) 14 CFR 21.189—Limited.
(4) 14 CFR 21.190—Light-sport.
(5) 14 CFR 21.191—Experimental.
 
b. Start at the top of the table and work down. If the certification basis and/or the notes match the aircraft you are certificating, issue the limitation.
c. Prohibit the carriage of passengers, flight over densely populated areas, and night or instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the following:
(1) Experimental LSA aircraft that formerly held a special LSA airworthiness certificate;
(2) Aircraft unable to comply with 14 CFR 91.117(a) in normal cruise configuration;
(3) Aircraft for which the manufacturer’s or country of origin’s emergency checklist requires bailout or ejection in the event of an engine or other system failure;
(4) Any aircraft in which a single system failure will render the aircraft uncontrollable; xx/xx/xxxx DRAFT 8130.2H Appendix C C-3
(5) Rocket-powered aircraft; and
(6) Electric-powered aircraft.
d. Prohibit the carriage of passengers in aircraft certificated under 14 CFR 21.191(a), (b), or (c).
e. Require all operations be conducted within a specified geographical area for aircraft described in paragraph c above and—
(1) Aircraft unable to comply with 14 CFR 91.117(a) in normal cruise configuration,
(2) Aircraft for which the manufacturer’s or country of origin’s emergency checklist requires bailout or ejection in the event of an engine or other system failure,
(3) Any aircraft in which a single system failure will render the aircraft uncontrollable,
(4) Rocket-powered aircraft, and
(5) Electric-powered aircraft.
The section below does not directly affect LSA specifically but I believe is onerous and could hinder development of new amateur built aircraft kits.  One of the few ways that small manufacturers are able to recoup some of the cost of aircraft development is to at some point sell off the developed aircraft. The FAA is trying to make that a little more difficult with this policy change…
d. Prototype Aircraft Produced by an Amateur-Built Aircraft Kit Manufacturer. Prototype aircraft produced by a kit manufacturer to prove their design for sale as an amateur-built kit are not eligible for an experimental certificate for the purpose of operating an amateur-built aircraft.
(1) These prototype aircraft are not produced by persons “solely for their own education or recreation,” and therefore are not eligible for an experimental airworthiness certificate under 14 CFR 21.191(g).
(2) Following termination of their use in the business development activity, such prototype aircraft may be eligible for an experimental certificate for another purpose(s).
(3) In those instances where an aircraft is constructed at a manufacturing facility by employees or principals of that company, the applicant must demonstrate to the FAA that the aircraft was not produced to be used in the furtherance of the business activities of that company.

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 8

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images