In a rarity for an FAA rulemaking, the leaders of nine associations collectively wrote the agency strongly praising its proposed rewrite of small aircraft certification rules, saying the effort will ensure a brighter future for the community. The association leaders also stressed the importance of the agency moving ahead as expeditiously as possible.

But not all commenters completely embraced the new direction for Part 23 certification. The NTSB urged caution, saying the FAA must ensure that an adequate level of safety is met.

In March the FAA released a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would overhaul Part 23 certification standards, making them more performance-based and less prescriptive. The NPRM would enable use of international aviation community consensus standards, rather than solely FAA-driven requirements, and would eliminate current weight and propulsion divisions of Part 23 in favor of a system of levels based on aircraft complexity and performance.

The industry letter was sent as the FAA was to hold a hearing on the NPRM and in advance of the May 13 comment deadline. “The importance of this effort cannot be understated…the FAA must work swiftly to implement the changes being proposed in as short a time as possible,” the industry groups said.

According to the associations, the FAA could reach a final rule by the end of the year, but “this must be an absolute priority for the FAA, and with the expected timeline pressures that the Presidential election will bring, business as usual will not be sufficient to achieve [this] goal.”

The associations further praised the FAA staff, who they said listened to the concerns of the general aviation industry. “The process of creating this proposal was nine years in the making, and it is clear the work that has been put into the proposal was worthwhile…[The rule] will ensure that the future of general aviation is limited only by human imagination.”

While traditional rulemaking has focused on specific regulations through “myopic lenses,” the associations said this one “takes account of the entire general aviation ecosystem; it ensures real-world improvements can occur, as opposed to other rulemaking activities that merely produce more documentation and administrative work.”

The associations added that the proposed changes are necessary to reverse the slow decline in general aviation and urged the FAA to continue to work with industry and international regulators to ensure harmonization.

Signing the letter were leaders of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Aircraft Electronics Association (AEA), National Air Transportation Association, Helicopter Association International, National Association of State Aviation Officials, Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), NBAA, General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) and the International Council of Air Shows.

GAMA, along with AEA, AOPA and EAA, sent separate comments reiterating support, but diving more deeply into the NPRM with detailed suggestions. Many of these involved minor language changes. The suggestions ranged from ensuring the new Part 23 numbering system is well organized and clear to better alignment of the wording with Part 21 to refer to “the aircraft must” instead of the “applicant must.”

Requests for Further Changes

The associations, however, did criticize some details of the NPRM. For example, they called the takeoff performance section “far too detailed and prescriptive.” They also asked the FAA to make changes to ensure the NPRM can accommodate emerging technologies involving hybrid and electric propulsion. “While it may take time to create detailed means of compliance which can be broadly applied to these airplanes, the regulations must accommodate these technologies,” the associations said. “We are working with a broad range of general aviation manufacturers towards fielding new propulsion systems based on electric motors and fans.”

While the industry mostly embraced the rulemaking effort, the NTSB said it feels some aspects “need further consideration, clarification and refinement.” In comments signed by NTSB chairman Christopher Hart, the agency said, “Although we appreciate that the NPRM attempts to address certain issues related to our safety recommendations and accident investigations, we are concerned with and have questions about how the new certification process will work. We urge the FAA to maintain the necessary level of safety as it continues to develop new pathways to airplane certification.”

The agency noted that consensus standards have been used with light-sport aircraft. Investigation of in-flight structural breakups of Zodiac CH-601XLs revealed “problems, delays and omissions within the consensus standards.” Existing Part 23 likely would not have allowed certification of the CH-601XL, but ASTM consensus standards “did not provide adequate protection from catastrophic aerodynamic flutter.”

The NTSB said it appreciates that the consensus standards process provides a collaborative framework for standards development. However, the agency added, “We are concerned that design standards important for safety considerations may be overlooked. We encourage the FAA to refine its methodology of how important design considerations are reviewed.”

Further, while the NPRM is intended to foster new technologies, the NTSB expressed concern that the FAA might face more demand to evaluate new technologies. The agency has found in a past accident investigation “insufficient guidance and education for FAA certification engineers during the type certification process to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.”

The agency also questioned whether the proposed requirements for stall characteristics and stall warnings would have the intended effect in curbing loss-of-control accidents.