gmm@bunker.UUCP (Gregory M. Mandas) (10/18/84)
> > I think the FAA will probably be the next to deregulate just like the > FCC did and do away with alot of stupid rules. Speaking of deregulation, what does the net think of the AOPA proposal to create a new type certificate, Primary Aircraft. The intent of the proposal is to certify personal use airplanes that carry no more than four people and have a engine =< 200 horse power under this new type so that aviation manufacturers can bring modern technology into their new designs without having to go through the costly certification process. There were also provisions to allow the owner to be certified by the manufacturer to preform some maintenance tasks. The main AOPA arguement is that there have been very few new designs because any new design has to be certified under the present Part 25 FARs. Planes like the Cherokee and Cessna 150 are certified under the FARs that were present when the plane was first certified. In some cases this can be a long a 40 yeasr ago. The Cherokee is still around because Piper can easily modify it and still comply with the original type certificate. I think any improvement in the certification system that will open the aviation door to more people is greatly needed. Greg Mandas ittvax!bunker!gmm
cfiaime@ihnp4.UUCP (Jeff Williams) (10/19/84)
I am all for the primary airplane regulations as proposed by the EAA
and AOPA. However, several of the later ammendments to FAR 23 are nice,
like non-siphoning fuel tanks, fail-safe primary structure (wings, tail),
stronger landing gear, no pitch change with flap movement, and the like.
Many of these improvements in later airplanes are clearly better than the
aircraft designed under CAR 8 such as the Cessna 150, Piper Cherokee series,
Beech Bonanza series, and the like.
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of antique aircraft. The older airplanes
often perform better on smaller engines than the airplanes built today.
BUT, my 1940 Funk does not have a fail-safe wing spar or tail group. My
brother's J-3 Cub has a 2.5 g wing strut. There was no fatigue testing
on the older airplanes, so the Beech 18 now has a fatigued wing spar problem.
The primary airplane is a fantastic idea. We need a less expensive airplane
for the non-commercial pilot. I hope that the FAA acts positivly on this
proposal.
Now, how about the recreational pilot certificate as proposed by the National
Association of Flight Instructors?
As a note about the primary airplane. I am presently flight testing an all
composite two-seat airplane for a group in Sugar Grove, Illinois. We are
looking at this airplane for certification. Once the announcement is printed
in AOPA Pilot, I will post a flight test report on the net. (The flight test
report has been submitted to EAA Sport Aviation, so those of you who belong
to EAA may get a chance to read this report and see pictures of this fantastic
little airplane.) More data coming as I am given permission to release it.
Jeff Williams
AT&T Bell Laboratories
ihnp4!cfiaime
(the userid are also my credentials,
the password was my licence "atpmulti".)