Story ID: 
EASA Releases Small Aircraft Certification Proposal
By: Kerry Lynch
Caption: Release of NPA puts CS-23 on pace for year-end enactment in Europe.
Word Count: 654

The European Aviation Safety Agency’s proposed rewrite of certification rules governing light aircraft is drawing praise not only for aligning with international work on the rules but also for taking into account recent public input. The EASA issued Notice of Proposed Amendment (NPA) 2016-05 to rewrite CS-23 certification rules for light aircraft in June, noting that the proposal introduces “a new concept by reducing the number of requirements from 399 detailed technical requirements to 67 safety objectives.”

 “It is not just the reduction of requirements that is ground-breaking,” the agency said, “but also that the remaining requirements, as they have become safety objectives to be achieved, are written in such a way that they enable innovation and the use of new technologies.”

The EASA and the U.S. FAA are among several regulatory agencies that worked closely with industry in an international rulemaking group to rethink the approach to regulating the certification of small aircraft. The effort culminated in an agreement to move toward consensus-based standards and a risk-based approach to certification that accounts for the complexity of the aircraft rather than simple weight categories.

Another key objective of the NPA was to be in harmony with the FAA proposed rewrite of Part 23 certification rules, the EASA emphasized. The agency said in the rulemaking document that it “has been observing and cooperating in this restructuring of Part 23 from the early days of the Aviation Rulemaking Committee and strongly supports the initiative that is aiming to change the airworthiness requirements in a way that supports general aviation development and innovation. It is believed and clearly expressed by stakeholders in Europe and the U.S. that harmonization of this restructuring is vital for global success.”

The proposal was released three months after the FAA had published its proposal and a year after the European agency had issued an advance notice of proposed amendment to gather initial industry comment.
Cooperative Effort
The NPA considers feedback from the advance document as well as the FAA proposal, the EASA said. Noting that its proposal is “not fully in line” with the FAA’s, the European agency urged comment on the differences between the two documents.

Greg Bowles, director of European regulatory affairs and engineering for GAMA, praised the EASA NPA as a “concise and well worded document” that takes into account concerns expressed in comments to both the European advanced notice and the FAA proposal. “We really thought the Part 23 [rewrite] has great benefits. The EASA proposal is a further evolution of what the FAA proposed and has improved upon it,” Bowles said.

He noted that the FAA proposal is more prescriptive in the minimum control speed to address loss of control, while the EASA proposal takes a more performance-based approach. Also, the EASA document would adopt a new numbering system that reduces confusion, Bowles said.

“The EASA’s draft rule and its harmonization with the FAA’s Part 23 proposal reflects the positive outcomes that can occur when regulatory agencies around the world work together and partner with industry to develop smart, common-sense solutions that allow general aviation manufacturers to innovate as they continue to improve the safety of aircraft,” added GAMA president and CEO Pete Bunce. “We hope that the FAA will announce its final Part 23 rule soon to ensure global harmonization on this important issue.”

The NPA anticipates a three-month consultation period followed by a final decision in the fourth quarter. Bowles expressed optimism that the EASA rule could stay on track for release this year, since the European Commission has placed the purview of the rewrite entirely within the EASA. “It has been a really long road,” he said, noting that the rewrite effort has been under way for nearly a decade. “It’s a pretty monumental change, and at a time when the industry needs one.”