Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: FAA Part 23 ARC

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    49

    FAA Part 23 ARC

    I found this article in this month's Sport Pilot interesting. How the FAA thinks that certification can increase safety by 2X is amazing. The number of accidents attributed to manufacturer defects is so low as to be statistically insignificant. Also the cost of certification has two factors. Increased cost do to paperwork preparations and testing, but the real cost to us is the delay in getting products to market. A recent article by Extra Aircraft says they have been waiting for over 15 months for the FAA to certify the Extra 500. An aircraft that is already certified in Europe.

    I hope that EAA will keep us informed on how the ARC progresses over the next year and the proposals that are being made.

    Part 23.jpg

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    444
    Great Topic!

    Having spent about two-thirds of my working life as a financial analyst in various manufacturing companies focused on "New Product" development I can appreciate the position presented by the article. In one very large high tech business that employed me, we had a 30 man team charged with reducing the new product introduction cycle and the cost benefits and quality improvements were significant! We developed a "process map" that covered the all the activities "needed" through the product life cycle. As this map unfolded, we found all kinds of duplications, bottlenecks, and roadblocks that provided little or no benefits but really slowed things down and added cost. After a lot of "workout" team efforts we were able to establish a set of new "maps" on how to streamline processes, speed-up the development cycle and save a lot of $$! If Industry can accomplish why not Govt?!

    Joe

  3. #3
    rosiejerryrosie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    392
    If Industry can accomplish why not Govt?!

    Primarily because government doesn't care. They don't have to make a profit, only to raise taxes. If government got more efficient, they'd need less people and that is not good for job security....
    Cheers,
    Jerry

    NC22375
    65LA out of 07N Pennsylvania

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    444
    Jerry,

    Based on the article, it looks like the FAA administrators are heading in the right direction. We have a "mature" economy and growth rates will remain below the old magic 3% for quite some time. The only way to "save" govt. jobs is to get more bang for the dollars collected. The process of getting our economic house in order after the 2008 financial crash can't be cured by looking at what worked in the past. We have experienced a "reset" not just a recession. The Federal Reserve has already reduced interests rates to extremely low rates, their is a lot of political noise centered around tax rates, but the only rate that matters is the "effective rate". That is what is actually paid after all the "allowable deductions" are taken, that rate has been very low since 2001. I think the so called "Bush Tax Cuts" coupled with the 2008 crash have forced the govt. segment of our economy to look for ways to reduced costs, improve efficiency, as well as find new sources of revenue. Govt. is always the last segment of the economy impacted by a downturn, so now after a lot of small start-ups in the aircraft industry have gone chapter 11, we see the FAA getting some "religion". Yes, industry does respond quickly because they must profit or die, but private industry isn't a cure all for every problem facing the country. I'm just glad to see the FAA trying to work smarter not just harder.

    Joe

  5. #5
    rosiejerryrosie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    392
    I think the so called "Bush Tax Cuts" coupled with the 2008 crash have forced the govt. segment of our economy to look for ways to reduced costs, improve efficiency, as well as find new sources of revenue.
    ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
    Oh, OK...That explains the growth in government jobs over the last five years. Glad you explained that so well....;o)
    Cheers,
    Jerry

    NC22375
    65LA out of 07N Pennsylvania

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Sidney, OH
    Posts
    444
    We haven't had any growth in Ohio. The town I live in closed an elementary school, laid off a bunch of teachers and even cancelled a voluntary mentoring program to eliminate a part-time coordinator that was paid $10/hr! My property taxes went down due to lower overall values in real estate in this town, next year will leave the local school board about a million short so they will have to look for more ways to save money. This year we had a very warm winter with little snow, so the lack of snow removal wasn't much of a problem, but they hardly clear any residential streets only the main highways. The Fed isn't the only govt we have, and the ripple effect of slow or no growth runs downs to local towns and counties. Only the Fed can print money and run a deficit and that game is going to run up against a ceiling if it hasn't already.

    Joe

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •