Avionics News July 2016 - 10

In this monthly column, Ric Peri of the AEA's Washington, D.C., office, informs members of the latest regulatory updates.

B Y

R I C

P E R I
A EA V I C E P R ES I D E N T O F G OV E R N M E N T & I N D U ST RY A F FA I RS

Darwinian NIMBY

he power of the pen is an unarguable phenomenon in
modern society. There was an interesting statistic recently on the number of people who receive their news via
social media. A 2015 study, conducted by Pew Research Center,
found that 63 percent of both Twitter and Facebook users say
each platform serves as a source for news about events and issues
outside the realm of friends and family. Add to that the headlinegrabbing mainstream media, whether it's a "mainstream" reporter
taking the release of aviation accident statistics to justify their
preconceived perception or the daily dribble of American politics
during election season, and you have people living in sound bites
while the real story is often deeper than the mere headlines.
For the past couple of months, the aviation headlines have
universally raved about the "revolutionary" changes that are taking place in general aviation. The revolutionary changes, from
the Federal Aviation Administration's approval of "experimental
avionics in certified aircraft to the redesign of how manufacturers leverage their dealer network, certainly were topics of
discussion with nearly every group I visited during the Aircraft
Electronics Association International Convention & Trade Show
in Orlando this past April. Changing times? Of course. Exciting
times? Absolutely. But revolutionary? Absolutely not.
I recently read an article from an aviation trade journal that
compared the Part 23 rewrite to the light sport aircraft standards and predicted the same safety record for the "new" Part
23. I'm not sure who the author was, but he or she did not
understand the subtle differences.
Before we start on the differences, we should consider
the similarities. The majority of the consensus standards for
these aircraft are managed by ASTM International. That is
where the similarities end.
10

avionics news

july

2016

But wait, "that is a major similarity" you say. "That in and
of itself is revolutionary," you assume. Sorry, it's not.
If you were to simply count the parts in a typical Part 23
aircraft, many conform to nongovernment consensus standards. Remember, most hardware, metals, composites, wiring, lights, avionics, fabrics, insulation, plastics and windows
all conform to nongovernment standards. Yes, but (I love that
phrase) ... what about the government relinquishing the safety standard to the consensus standard? It isn't! This is where
the mainstream media has simply not accurately reported the
change.

The evolutionary use of consensus
standards by the FAA is not new or novel.
If you read the Part 23 notice of proposed rulemaking, you
would have read through it in a fraction of the time it takes to
read the current Part 23. It is absolutely a shell of its former
self. But that in and of itself is the "evolutionary" change. The
safety core was retained while divesting itself of anything that
might encumber the introduction of technology. While the
majority of small-plane technology was reasonably stagnant
through the 1950s, 1960s and even the 1970s, today's advances in consumer technologies have created a pent-up demand to
open general aviation to many of the fast-moving technologies
we experience on a daily basis outside of aviation. Look no
further than the demand for "office-in-the-skies" technology
demands for business jets, or Wi-Fi technologies in commercial aircraft for passenger entertainment.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Avionics News July 2016