|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Apr 25, 2013 22:41:29 GMT 12
We only have a few Parts of the regs applicable to the maintenance and operation of light aircraft. Apart from the maintenance requirements the operation of the various species of light GA aircraft are becoming much the same. The regulations of most countries are relatively easy to follow but it feels that the LSA and amateur built aircraft have an unfair advantage at times. Rather than flout the rules and try and dumb things down many in the industry have been trying to make the operation of light certified aircraft more feasible. It would be good for many owners to receive some optimistic news for a change. www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/GAMA_On_Part_23_Aero_208579-1.html'''''''''' General Aviation Manufacturers Association President Pete Bunce said Wednesday at Aero in Friedrichshafen that the international regulatory community has seen the light on revising certification rules and efforts to overhaul Part 23 and its international equivalents are gaining momentum. ''''''''' |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 26, 2013 18:30:34 GMT 12
It is all a bit of a crock. Lets be blunt, LSA are somewhat marginal from a duablilty point of view and most an't going to happy do 5000 hours let alone the 10000, cessna's and tomahawks do.
The only real difference be that will result if they replace FAR / CS23 with a GEMA code, is no independent vetting. The amount of time required to design a safe aircraft is unchanged (they can't change the laws of physics or maths). So stand by for a more flash in the pan manufactures, and a S*** load more AD's
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Apr 26, 2013 19:05:11 GMT 12
I hope it doesn't mean a fast track to complete certification, I think we are agreed on these 11,000 hour Pipers and Cessnas that have plenty of life in them. I see it more from an avionics installation viewpoint whereby they may permit easier upgrades to the existing GA fleet. The Airframe, engine and rotables/consumables are normally well maintained. It is the steam driven gauges and radio gear that could be upgraded if new certified items were more easily available. If the reporting is correct then you have to imagine the likes of Garmin have been lobbying for easier certification of their products. They would gain a massive market if the price of their equipment could be halved. Increased sales would have to mean greater profit. It really does seem strange that the strong and robust, mature if you like, aircraft are getting about with ancient avionics. They are sharing airspace with microlights, LSA, amateur built and similar machines with new generation avionics. I would be far happier if I was flying about using something better than a KX-170 and Pilot III for my communication, navigation and situation awareness. Am I dreaming when I think of a combined lightweight, cheap unit that can combine a multitude of communication, navigation and position reporting functions ? Obviously engine gauges could be incorporated into any future upgrades also. nzaviation.com/magazine/2011/06/refitted-tomahawks-better-than-ever/  www.soundsaero.co.nz/pa38_refurbish.htmAn even better job could be done with latest generation avionics. |
|
|
|
Post by madmac on Apr 26, 2013 21:07:20 GMT 12
Unfortunately the rules got the way they are, by inspecting the mortal remains of numerous pilots / aircraft. that isn't to say the rules are perfect, TSO'd aircraft harness are simply too weak and contribute significantly to fatalities (this is small aircraft, they are also used in airliners, but they have more give in them so don't tend to produce as higher loads). The general crash worthiness of even the new aircraft isn't that flash.
Interestingly the as far as I am aware study's of the effectiveness of electronic instruments, the only only one that really made a difference was capacitance fuel gauges which same to reduce the number of people running out of gas ( funny that). The modern stuff is much more reliable, but also as far more failure modes some of which are not as obvious.
Plus the pilot interfaces tend to be poor and provided plenty of scope for inflight distraction.
Of course the interesting thing is who is lobbing from Garmin etc, the accountant / managers who just see numbers or the guys who actually design the things. It is probably not the later. Also how many of the LAS homebuilts etc actually need / use the full capability of they electronics.
The general problem in aviation is everyone tends to think the CAA/ FAA/Guys they replaced/ the guys before they/ etc are incompetent idiots, that is really the case
|
|
