Close

Member Login

Logging In
Invalid username or password.
Incorrect Login. Please try again.

not a member? sign-up now!

Signing up could earn you gear and it helps to keep offensive content off of our site.

Part 23: Time for a Change

By Robert Goyer / Published: Apr 27, 2012
Rate it! or
Part 23 Airplane

Part 23 standards make sense only for the
biggest “light” airplanes, like this Cessna
Citation CJ4. Simpler Part 23 regs for light
airplanes might be coming.

There are efforts under way around the country (and around the world, in fact) to redo Part 23, the iconic regulation that addresses the certification of light airplanes. While we’re still years away from a final rule, these first steps are critical to the ultimate success or failure of creating a new regulatory landscape for light aviation. The early reports are encouraging. Members of the rule-making committee tell us that they are looking at every element of the regulation in hopes of achieving a number of as yet loosely articulated goals, including cutting the number of light airplane fatalities in half and halving the cost of certification for the manufacturer. The prospect of new airplanes that cost half what they do today while being twice as safe might sound like a dream, but it’s a dream that many of the committee members share.

One thing is certain. It’s time for a change. It’s not that the rules that govern the certification of light airplanes are broken. They’re not. They’re just aimed at the wrong airplanes.

But how did we get here?

As the rules that oversee certification of light airplanes have evolved over the past several decades, they have more and more focused on the largest and fastest of what the FAA considers by statute light airplanes as regulators attempted to find every potential flaw along the production and operation chain and correct it before it became an accident. The more complex the airplane, the more intense the focus was.

The end result has been a process that is tremendously rigorous and tremendously effective at ensuring that only very high quality airplanes are awarded new certification. And by necessity, the regulations that have emerged are sufficiently complex to take into account all of the intricacies of the largest Part 23 models.

But along the way, regulators seem to have forgotten that, while they were concerned with the myriad details of emergency oxygen at Flight Level 410 on a 12,500-pound jet, the regulations they were promulgating were sweeping up light four-seat singles in their wake. The result is a Part 23 that has become too onerous and expensive for prospective manufacturers of simple airplanes to tackle.

At heart, it’s a definition problem, because it’s only the FAA that considers 12,500-pound airplanes “light” in any way. In many cases Part 23 airplanes bump right up against the 12,500-pound weight limit of the category, and often bulge past it. The 12,500-pound figure, whether it’s an accident of history or a line in the regulatory sand that somebody drew because one had to be drawn, is arbitrary. But we have had to live with it. The result is a certification category that is defined by the biggest airplanes in the category, airplanes that are fundamentally different from the actually light airplanes that many of us fly.

The deck is stacked against real light airplanes. A company that would design and certify a four-seat Part 23 model in today’s regulatory environment had better pencil in a line item for around $100 million dollars. That’s just how much it costs, in part because it’s such a complex process and in part because it takes a long time to complete and requires teams of engineers to pull off. For a start-up airplane maker, that means doing “business” for a number of years, likely seven to 10, before getting to deliver a single product. Just in terms of investment and risk, I can think of better businesses to be in, like any other one. As a result, the stories of light airplane certification programs are almost without exception harrowing affairs, characterized by delays, bankruptcies, relocations and, increasingly, foreign investment.

A company that might succeed in crossing the finish line is left with a mountain of development costs to amortize. With $100 million spent before first delivery, that means that the airplanes the company sells have to cost a lot more than what it takes to make them and work in a little profit. For that hypothetical $100 million program, that means that a company would have to tack on $100,000 in costs to each and every airplane if it sells 1,000 of them — not a likely scenario — and that’s not factoring in the substantial costs the company incurred in borrowing the money to get to first delivery. This is, of course, on top of the costs to produce and support the airplane once it’s in production. No wonder half a million dollars a copy is the new normal in the world of light airplanes.

The costs are so daunting that even Cessna a decade ago abandoned its plans to develop a line of new piston singles and instead bought an existing high-performance model, the Columbia, that somebody else had shepherded through certification and deliveries.

Comments (3) Post a comment

All Comments

SBarnettW's picture

This would be a godsend for GA. I hope/wish it gets the same attention from the large "alphabet organizations" as the AOPA/EAA medical proposal has. It's far more important, in my opinion.

It's high time we restored the public's interest and fascination with flight. This would get us halfway there.

Thomas Boyle's picture

Robert, you recognize that Part 23 makes little if any difference to the safety of truly light airplanes. In fact, it also makes little if any difference to the safety of Learjets and Citations, King Airs and Cheyennes. The reason is that a company investing the kind of money it takes to develop one of these aircraft is not especially likely to deliberately cut engineering corners. Of course, many of the accident causes that Part 23 has identified are things that the engineers would do well to address, so the one saving grace is that Part 23 may not be as big a cost driver for these aircraft either; much of what it requires would have to be done anyway.

It is difficult, however, to overstate the impact of Part 23 on truly light airplanes. I would hazard to guess that more types of 2-seat light airplanes have entered the US market in the 7 years since 2005 than had done so in the 50 years before that, with remarkably few serious design flaws (I can think of 2 types with possible patterns of in-flight structural failures). And that proliferation of designs happened despite the fact that LSA was launched right before the Great Recession, and without anyone solving the manufacturing problem of delivering cost efficiencies on small production runs (which means LSA are still too expensive by a factor of about 4).

If the FAA would like to have something to regulate, it would do well to turn Part 23 into a set of engineering standards, require companies to identify which of those standards they comply with, and get out of the way...

yars's picture

Bob:

A new Part 23 is decades overdue, and I’ve argued in many spaces that the agency should abandon its legacy process of categorizing aircraft by gross weight, in favor of a grouping by occupant capacity. Eight or fewer seats for the “Personal” categorization. Four couples for dinner or two couples plus each pair’s government-issued two kids is about the most that defensibly can be characterized as personal use. Nine to nineteen seats for “Professional” vehicles. Twenty seats or more for “Transport” vehicles. Require a Private certificate (or something like it) for Personal use; a Commercial/Instrument plus a Medical certificate for Professional use; an ATP plus a type rating plus a Medical for Transportation use. If the agency decides to do away with the class-3 Medical for Personal use airplanes, so be it – for ALL such vehicles. Note that I’m not attempting to re-write Parts 91, 121, 125, or 135 here – this is just for the vehicles and the requirements to operate them as PIC under Part 91. I accept that an argument can be made for a 2-place classification, but I’m persuaded that any new 2-place that isn’t certified to the new Personal category standards could/should instead be classified Experimental, and flown strictly for training and proficiency purposes – required flight crew members only, at all times.

All of this would be for new designs. I consider it silly to try to fit a legacy design into any new Rules paradigm. That always seems to result in the tail wagging the dog. We need a new puppy, thank you very much.

But I disagree that we should have seen a half-dozen or more clean-sheet designs from Cirrus and Diamond. Even in the “salad days” of the 1970s, the industry produced just over 17,000 vehicles per year. Not 17 million, like the often-compared automobile industry. IMWO, part of the industry’s collective problem is too MANY models competing for too few purchases.

Let’s look at the good old days of Piper. They had the Cherokee 140, the Warrior, the Archer, the Pathfinder, and let’s not forget the Tomahawk. They had the Arrow, and the Cherokee-six cum Saratoga. Many of these models came in several flavors: fixed or retractable; injected or carbureted; turbo’d or not. Then they had the Seminole, the Seneca, the Aztec, and various Navajos. Again, in various flavors. Plus three models of the Cheyenne. Nice to have choices, but Piper could have sold a lot more lower-priced airplanes if their lineup had consisted of fewer models with the associated lessening of certification costs and manufacturing overhead.

Cessna had an even greater number of distinct models; I won’t bother to recount them here. My point is, the manufacturers and their customers would be better-served by far fewer models with far higher production numbers for each. I’m not saying that marketplace choice should be constrained by regulation. But America doesn’t really need any more pizza joints OR any more 180 hp 4-place single-engine airplane models.

Cirrus already has a 4-place single (several, actually). They’ve characterized their SF-50 personal jet as THE step-up airplane for SR-2x owners. The only logical place for them to expand their product line is with a 2-place trainer cum LSA offering. Diamond has a 2-place, a 4-place, a (now 5-place) piston twin, and they aspire to offer a 4/5-place personal jet. Piper still offers more models than the marketplace needs; Cessna has plenty. Beech, Mooney, Commander, Bellanca, and a dozen others basically are out of the game.

Seating capacity; range; speed/climb; weather ability; pressurization – these are the items that define and sell airplanes. The entire industry has six times the choice that it needs, from LSAs to high-end bizjets. That extra choice means increased costs and depressed sales. I’d rather see a handful of capable, affordable airplanes, than watch much of the industry starve to death.

I think a new Part 23 could re-set the table.

Top Rated

Your Comment
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use