What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

FAA proposed policy affecting RV-12?

This new proposal is chock full of errors and problems. I wouldn't put in too much worry at this point.
 
Changing rules in the middle of the game

Mel

This Proposal is very confusing
I read it and can't understand what it will effect.
In your opinion will this have any effect on EAB with a Light Sport Pilot and or a VFR Pilot.

I am a VFR Pilot and concerned about my age and how long I will be able to pass a 3rd class medical.

I sold my RV10 I was building and I am now building a 12 for this reason







Mel said:
This new proposal is chock full of errors and problems. I wouldn't put in too much worry at this point.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I've talked to several people supposedly "in the know" and no one seems to understand any of it. It is extremely confusing and contradicts itself in many places.
 
Eight years ago, the FAA was giving a keynote speech at an aviation convention. Subject of the speech was Alaska and the ADS-B Initiative. The speaker presented the FAA goals in Alaska for that year. One of the goals was to increase by 4% the number of pilots with licenses, from 48% to 52% of the pilot population.

One can probably compare Class G and Class E airspace to Alaska, and make the connection to the proposed Pilot Protection Act working its way through Congress. The question becomes does the FAA really need to be that involved with recreational VFR daytime flight in this day of austere budgets?
 
Remember, this is a first draft type document. There will be LOTS of fixing and tweaking before anything goes into effect.
 
"(3) Any aircraft in which a single system failure will render the aircraft uncontrollable"

Ummmm wouldn't that be just about every aircraft out there that doesn't have redundant control systems?
 
NEVER assume that a Federal rule proposal, even a stupid one, won't get adopted. I deal with many of these as an occupational hazard. Comment early, comment often.

BE SURE your comments indicate:

* How you are will be directly and adversely affected by the rule
* Your interest in not having this adverse affect
* How the rule should be changed.

Comments such as "I don't like the rule" / "this sucks" / "more regulation is bad" are ALWAYS ignored in the comment process. In order to preserve your right to object to the rule later (this is particularly true in the formal rulemaking process), you have to show specifically how this will harm you. Potential harm doesn't work.

SO! If you have a S-LSA that has gone to E-LSA, OR you have a S-LSA and are concerned that this would reduce the utility of your aircraft if you went to E-LSA (must indicate that you fly with passengers, over populated areas, etc), then PLEASE COMMENT.

Example:

I am Joe Pilot. I own a E-LSA, registration NXXXXX, type "Super Deluxe Flyer". This aircraft originally held an airworthiness certificate as a S-LSA. It was converted to a E-LSA on DATE.

I routinely operate NXXXXX as Pilot In Command under FAR 91 (etc). Many of these flights are with with a passenger over AREA, which qualifies as a "populated area" under FAR. In 2013, I made NUMBER of flights over AREA while carrying a passenger. Aircraft NXXXXX is based at AIRPORT, which is located in / near AREA.

If the FAA adopts STUPID POLICY, I will be unable to operate NXXXXX from AIRPORT or to fly over AREA while carrying a passenger. This will adversely affect my recreational use of aircraft NXXXXX.

Aircraft NXXXXX has over HOURS of incident-free operation. The FAA has provided no justifiable reason why STUPID POLICY will increase safety to AREA when aircraft NXXXXX has safely operated above it for HOURS.


You get the idea....

TODR
 
Folks, if anyone makes it down to sun n fun and wants to talk a bit (or a lot) about this draft, I'd be happy to do so. There's a lot of energy out there on this draft and what's inside it. I can dispel a few myths and I'd be happy to hand carry comments back to Washington. Everyone wants to write and comment, and I'm glad you do, and you should, but at some point I'll be sitting at the table discussing these things and it would be good to take what I learn from all of you and work towards drafting some better language. No question, this draft needs some help.

Hey, what can I say. If there's enough energy and people who want to meet at sun n fun, I'll set up a time and place... Probably just past a metal detector and behind some bulletproof glass.:D But seriously, offer stands.

-Mark
 
Mark - I'd like to ask this with the utmost respect and careful choice of words. What is it about the work process that produces documents like this, that so often contain language that exhibits a profound lack of understanding about the area being regulated? That seem, to the educated layman, to lack basic common sense?

I expect this kind of thing from Congress. But the FAA has both position authority AND knowledge authority. It has true experts. Where are they in this process? Yet so frequently things like this come out and we get embroiled in a needless fight. (Example: sleep apnea.)

How difficult would it have been to, as part of the process, have someone other than lawyers look at it (because clearly no pilots or aviation experts did)? To send it - fax or email, to say the ALPA, AOPA, EAA, etc. with a cheery note that says "Hey y'all - here's something we are kicking around. Do you see any showstoppers? Any forehead-slapping thing that we might have missed? Hey, we're all human! Howzabout a friendly review before we go public?"

Why do we have to always start things out adversarially because of a (to put it mildly) lack of consideration of the screamingly obvious real world effects of the proposed change?

Thanks!
 
Bill_H said:
Mark - I'd like to ask this with the utmost respect and careful choice of words. What is it about the work process that produces documents like this, that so often contain language that exhibits a profound lack of understanding about the area being regulated? That seem, to the educated layman, to lack basic common sense?

I expect this kind of thing from Congress. But the FAA has both position authority AND knowledge authority. It has true experts. Where are they in this process? Yet so frequently things like this come out and we get embroiled in a needless fight. (Example: sleep apnea.)

How difficult would it have been to, as part of the process, have someone other than lawyers look at it (because clearly no pilots or aviation experts did)? To send it - fax or email, to say the ALPA, AOPA, EAA, etc. with a cheery note that says "Hey y'all - here's something we are kicking around. Do you see any showstoppers? Any forehead-slapping thing that we might have missed? Hey, we're all human! Howzabout a friendly review before we go public?"

Why do we have to always start things out adversarially because of a (to put it mildly) lack of consideration of the screamingly obvious real world effects of the proposed change?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

Bill......could not have stated this issue any better. Truly makes you wonder the pay scale of those involved (trying to be polite).
 
Bill_H said:
Mark - I'd like to ask this with the utmost respect and careful choice of words. What is it about the work process that produces documents like this, that so often contain language that exhibits a profound lack of understanding about the area being regulated? That seem, to the educated layman, to lack basic common sense?

I expect this kind of thing from Congress. But the FAA has both position authority AND knowledge authority. It has true experts. Where are they in this process? Yet so frequently things like this come out and we get embroiled in a needless fight. (Example: sleep apnea.)

How difficult would it have been to, as part of the process, have someone other than lawyers look at it (because clearly no pilots or aviation experts did)? To send it - fax or email, to say the ALPA, AOPA, EAA, etc. with a cheery note that says "Hey y'all - here's something we are kicking around. Do you see any showstoppers? Any forehead-slapping thing that we might have missed? Hey, we're all human! Howzabout a friendly review before we go public?"

Why do we have to always start things out adversarially because of a (to put it mildly) lack of consideration of the screamingly obvious real world effects of the proposed change?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

I certainly understand the frustration. The concern that this document will go 'live as-is' and the fact that this draft is public (or rather the process is being more transparent) is creating a lot of energy and conversation. There is a process that runs its course and fleshes out these things. It happens often to many documents. I can assure you, there is a lot of debate and effort that the draft policy created, which is really a good thing. I would bet it looks quite a bit different than what you see in draft when it's all done. Probably the most I can say about it really, other than use the open comment period to submit your comments or spend some time with me at Sun n Fun.
 
I am a contributing member of some ISA committees - that produce Standards. Standards are important because they carry regulatory weight. So a strict ANSI methodology is followed, reflecting consensus, balance of interests, etc. This is almost all volunteer work of knowledgeable professionals whose intent is to improve the body of knowledge.

Why can't there be a volunteer group of knowledgeable aviation professionals, reflecting a cross section of interests, and interested parties that could assist in the initial formation of proposals like this? I am not talking about "lobbyists in the back room writing the regulations" but some kind of input to the process so it is not waaaaaay off of the rails from the very start. That really makes for hard feelings, suspicion, and a lack of respect on loll sides.

I would not suggest this except for it keeps happening over and over. Parts issues. proposed crazy ADs. the stuff we read about and get "alerts" on every month. The FAA doesn't seem to have a handle on it. The good, knowledgeable, experienced people in the FAA don't seem to be anywhere NEAR this work process. It hurts everyone.
 
One thing to add - If you don't comment, you will have limited legal standing to challenge the rule once it is final. Every Federal agency must address comments when a regulation ("rulemaking") goes on public comment. Not infrequently, the agency will simply say "we disagree", but if you've commented, you have more standing to challenge things in court.

Please note that none of this is to argue with anyone on VAF who works for any of the Federal agencies - their openness here is very much appreciated. I merely want to make sure that everyone knows that commenting on proposed rules is a very scripted process, and if you don't know and follow the script, your comments are meaningless. Such is the way the Federal government works, for better or worse.

TODR
 
the_other_dougreeves said:
Every Federal agency must address comments when a regulation ("rulemaking") goes on public comment. Not infrequently, the agency will simply say "we disagree", but if you've commented, you have more standing to challenge things in court.
Click to expand...

no question, the comments must be addressed and I urge you to make them. a quick note here to clarify, is that the document is an FAA Order which does not follow the "rulemaking" process like a regulation, but is similar nonetheless. this doc does 'feel' like rulemaking because it's used to issue operating limitations, but the FAA Order allows for a much easier path for changes. The regulatory 'hitch' then is 91.9 that says you must follow your operating limitations. Orders do not require public comment, but I guess this one was so important (or disturbing) the group responsible put a draft out so their pay, intelligence, and existence could be questioned.
 
MeGiron said:
no question, the comments must be addressed and I urge you to make them. a quick note here to clarify, is that the document is an FAA Order which does not follow the "rulemaking" process like a regulation, but is similar nonetheless. this doc does 'feel' like rulemaking because it's used to issue operating limitations, but the FAA Order allows for a much easier path for changes.
Click to expand...
Federal agencies often do this so they can claim that the policy "does not represent final agency guidance" and thus, is not eligible for judicial review. The courts are very mixed on whether this practice is legit or not. If the comments support the position that such "policy" indeed had adverse affects and should have gone through the formal rulemaking process, it will have more leverage.

I (speaking personally, not for my employer) always try and craft comments to rulemakings and agency policies assuming that the will have to be used as part of the court record. They have to be as well crafted and written as legal briefs.

TODR
 
Does anyone know just what it is, in the FAA's mind, that they're wanting to accomplish with this proposal?

Jim
 
The way of health care reform

Sometimes these long convoluted proposals get pasted and the unintended consequences are not revealed till later. Lets be sure to follow the lead of AOPA and EAA for any of the responses from the pilot community which might help.
 
For what it's worth, I heard back from Mr. Holmes:

I've gotten a lot of feedback about the application for an ELSA airworthiness certificate when the aircraft formerly held an SLSA airworthiness certificate. During editing half the sentence was accidentally deleted. The scope intended was related to maintenance and safety directives that were not complied with.
Click to expand...

IF (and that's a really big if) this means what I think it might, then the restriction would only apply to airplanes that have applied for conversion but have outstanding maintenance/SB-type issues. I'd imagine the restriction would be lifted pending resolution of those issues. We'll have to wait on the revised part of that to be sure, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top