Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ultrarunner 832 days ago
Consider part 43, appendix A: It is legal for an owner to change a worn out tire. It's also legal to service wheel bearings. If, however, in the course of reassembly a new brake rotor or pads are installed instead of the old ones, illegal work has been performed. Part 43 also says nothing of actually inflating tires, so it's unclear— in the letter of the law— whether or not filling flat tires is approved.

There's probably an advisory circular around somewhere that expounds on this, but it illustrates well the over regulated[0] nature of GA in America[1] where the results of regulation do not necessarily effect safety. We have 50 year old (on average) airframes flying around with engines designed in the 1940s (on leaded fuel, no less). It costs $40,000+ to rebuild these engines, due largely to laws about who can work on them and the monopolies on who can provide which engines. It's only like this because the FAA is, for whatever reason, unable to work to a real solution.

[0] This is a specific complaint, not an argument for a general rollback

[1] Yes, I am aware that aviation is even more regulated elsewhere-- and that costs are increased while participation is decreased in those places

3 comments

A refreshing exception to this is the Experimental Amateur-Built (EAB) category, basically home-built aircraft. Subject to a different set of regulations, the owner or pilot of an EAB category airplane has surprisingly wide latitude to install equipment, perform maintenance, experiment with the power plant, and so on. I can't so much as run a USB charger out to the panel of a Cessna 172, but I can make major engine and airframe modifications to an EAB airplane and do the annual condition inspection if I was the builder.

Consequently, a lot of the innovation that's happening in General Aviation, including avionics, safety systems, ignition and fuel systems, is happening in the EAB world, with the Certified world catching up later.

With pretty onerous restrictions on how fast the plane can go, how powerful the engine can be, and once sold, a lot of those restrictions on Certified aircraft apply to you as the new owner.
Everything that you just said is incorrect, at least in the USA, where the overwhelming majority of all E-AB aircraft are built and operated.

There are no airspeed restrictions on experimental amateur built aircraft, other than the 250kt limit under 10,000 feet that applies to all aircraft.

There is absolutely no restriction on engine power output for E-AB aircraft.

The only significant restriction for the second owner of an experimental amateur built aircraft is that they cannot get a repairman’s certificate for the aircraft. This means they will have to hire a licensed A&P mechanic to perform the annual condition inspection. Other than that they can still maintain or modify the aircraft exactly as the original builder could.

I refer you to FAA advisory circular AC 20-27G for further info.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/...

In the EU pilot-owners can self-certify their aircraft for unleaded fuel, provided that the engine is unmodified and that its manufacturer has approved the use of Avgas UL 91. Print an AFM supplement page and put on new fuel quality placards and you can release the aircraft to service yourself. EASA has a set of "standard changes and standard repairs" (CS-STAN) that offer simplified procedures for some common modifications and repairs and this is one of them. CS-STANs have been around for about a decade now.

In the US you still need to go and purchase a supplemental type certificate for your specific aircraft type for this, I believe.

GA is a much smaller phenomenon in Europe than it is in the US but that's not because regulators are out to make it more complicated.

People are always surprised when I tell them I want to defund the FAA. They have irreparably harmed a beloved hobby of mine for generations. The list is quite frankly endless.
They're certainly done a lot of harm but also a lot of good. Regulations are written in blood.
Lives that would have been saved with innovative improvements are not accounted for.
Because everybody can just pull out a number for those lives out of their noses, while lives lost are pretty easy to quantify.

The same goes for root cause analysis behind those lives lost, clear cut for actual losses, fuzzy for hypothetical losses.

You’re arguing for a no-regulations free for all?
Not the OP, but we can probably do better than this:

https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2011/06/16/revitalizing-th...

So, someone complained about some audit. Like almost wveryone else who went through whatever audit, myself included at time (I went through EASA audits, SOX audits, non-SOX accounting audits, customer audits). If people wouldn't complain, the audit would be to lax to begin with.