Why SARA and PNC are different

The FAA makes changes to the FARs all the time. They go thru a Notice of Proposed Ruling Making process where they do a study, come up with recommended changes to the Regs, write a draft Reg, post it for public comment, evaluate the comments and then write a Final Regulation. The other Feds do the same thing. But the Feds own the process, they are under no obligation to incorporate the public's comments. This goes on all the time with over 2500 NPRMs published last year.

Look at the front of the process, the Feds are under no obligation to take the recommendations of a study into a proposed draft Reg.

So what is different about the the recommendations of the Part 23 Study committee recommendations, which includes recommendations to streamline the small aircraft design, certify, and production as well as recommendations for a new Primary Non-Commercial (PNC) aircraft category, and ways to ease the introduction of avionics? If you go back to the first paragraph, you will notice that there is no mention of the Legislative process. The great majority of Regulation changes happen without Legislation. These Study recommendations are different. Different, how so?

Congress inserted themselves by making the Small Aircraft Revitalization Act (SARA) the Law, Public Law 113-53. The law uses soft language but mentions Study by name and directs the FAA to achieve the objectives of study. Again, not real direct language but SARA is a very short law and the study and it's recommendations are the only reference.

If the FAA wanted to ignore part of the recommendations they might have been able to, but Congress inserted themselves for some purpose. Normally when you see that happen it is because some special interest didn't like something and congress bows to them and says don't do something.

Here we have the opposite. Congress passed SARA without any exceptions. So why should we let the FAA decide they can pick and choose. Not only did Congress pass SARA, it passed unanimously in the House (!!!). When was the last time you saw unanimity in the House?

So, we need to not be sheep, we need to point out that Congress did something unusual, they made something regulatory the law. Let's not let The FAA shortchange us where we have a Law that is great for us. Don't let the FAA deny us what is now the Law.

Thanks for posting this. Not only did SARA specifically reference the ARC report, it also includes a specific annotation in the findings:

(8) General aviation safety can be improved by modernizing and revamping the regulations relating to small airplanes to clear the path for technology adoption and cost-effective means to retrofit the existing fleet with new safety technologies.

Nothing would do more to meet that objective than reducing the cost of upgrades. Nothing would do more to cut upgrade costs than allowing non-TSO / non-PMA systems and parts. That points directly at the PNC proposal. I only wish they had called it out specifically as they did several other items in Section 3(b).

Here's one of my 'beefs'. If I decide to make an improvement on my Champ or a like plane. Let's say put a better set of brakes on it as parts are either difficult or unable to be obtained any more, then I need to go through either the PMA, STC (if they even exist) or the 337 process. Meanwhile the kid down the street can jack his pickup up, install a non standard exhaust system, change the intake system, do his own brake work, install power steering etc. with no paperwork involved.......I'm sure you get the picture. Whose more dangerous to the general public me or him? Having said that I have been able to get several 337's through over the years but it sometime takes a lot of 'pen pal work'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ssokol

Thanks for posting this. Not only did SARA specifically reference the ARC report, it also includes a specific annotation in the findings:

(8) General aviation safety can be improved by modernizing and revamping the regulations relating to small airplanes to clear the path for technology adoption and cost-effective means to retrofit the existing fleet with new safety technologies.

Nothing would do more to meet that objective than reducing the cost of upgrades. Nothing would do more to cut upgrade costs than allowing non-TSO / non-PMA systems and parts. That points directly at the PNC proposal. I only wish they had called it out specifically as they did several other items in Section 3(b).

---

SS- the ARC Report was clear, the only way the ARC could get the overall safety the FAA desired was by going beyond the strict PART 23 changes but to an easier avionics method and the PNC recommendations. It does seem counter-intuitive but the study participants (FAA, TC, EASA, Brasil, Japan, etc) felt that PNC was a safety enhancement. Also note that the study report says the FAA told the study particiapants that they were not limited to Part 23

It it is likely that we (EAA, AOPA, letter writing constituents) will have to get The House Aviation subcommittee to write a much more diplomatically worded letter to FAA that generates the thought cloud, "what do you not understand about implementing the whole report?"

The ARC Report (pg iv) Executive Summary notes that these recommendations are different and "unlike many recommendations from other ARCs, are not stand alone. The following recommendations are considered a package. ...implementation...short of the full package will not provide the transformations in safety or reductions in cost that aredesperately needed..." Further, "All recommendations in his report had overwhelming majority agreement." These were the Feds, professional regulators from many countries writing this report!

The introductory paragraph of the report (pg 1) makes clear that the ARC could not achieve the desired improvements solely by changes to Part 23 . "Over the course of the first few meetings, the ARC determined that including improvements to the existing fleet was an absolute necessity to get the desired safety increase in a reasonable timeframe."

The above points indicate that implementing the ARC's recommendations without Appendix G will not meet the statutory requirements expressed in SARA. To let the FAA restrict changes to strictly Part 23 would not only be morally wrong but most likely in violation of SARA, illegal.

Mike Berg- your comments are at the heart of the ARC Study Recommendations. The ARC understood you argument precisely, and that is exactly what is in the Appendix G PNC recommendations.

I joined this forum specifically to ask the community why they are not making noise about this issue. I am a millennial generation pilot who has been briefly into and back out of general aviation due to the frustration of dealing with certified aircraft, and I can flat out state that this rule would get me back into flying. I just can't see this as anything but the most important moment for GA in 30 years, yet a google search turns up not a single result on this issue in the last month. How many topics can you search for and turn up 0 results on google? Is the flying community's apathy that deep? I stopped paying my AOPA dues because they don't seem interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Berg

Here's one of my 'beefs'. If I decide to make an improvement on my Champ or a like plane. Let's say put a better set of brakes on it as parts are either difficult or unable to be obtained any more, then I need to go through either the PMA, STC (if they even exist) or the 337 process. Meanwhile the kid down the street can jack his pickup up, install a non standard exhaust system, change the intake system, do his own brake work, install power steering etc. with no paperwork involved.......I'm sure you get the picture. Whose more dangerous to the general public me or him? Having said that I have been able to get several 337's through over the years but it sometime takes a lot of 'pen pal work'.

---

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is one of the big reasons why I'm building my own plane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laser Mike

I joined this forum specifically to ask the community why they are not making noise about this issue. I am a millennial generation pilot who has been briefly into and back out of general aviation due to the frustration of dealing with certified aircraft, and I can flat out state that this rule would get me back into flying. I just can't see this as anything but the most important moment for GA in 30 years, yet a google search turns up not a single result on this issue in the last month. How many topics can you search for and turn up 0 results on google? Is the flying community's apathy that deep? I stopped paying my AOPA dues because they don't seem interested.

---

Mike- yeah, the silence is deafening, isn't it?

However, despite any real cry for this from the GA community, it does appear that this issue is slowly moving forward.

The FAA just published a draft of a new policy that appears to be part of the PNC proposal to allow non-TSO'd equipment.

The new FAA Reauthorization Bill includes language that reiterates SARA and requires Part 23 reform.

Perhaps the appearance of help on the horizon will encourage us to raise our voices to attract it to us.

ted