FAA Adoption of ASTM Standards 1

[kontiki99]

I heard about this at an FAA seminar last week. The speaker didn't know who ASTM was, but he mentioned the the FAA had adopted a number of commercial ASTM standards to support the Experimental Aircraft community.

I also heard something about this on the Grumman Gang list server too. I saw where folks had entered Electrical Load Analysis compliance statements on 337s that added equipment to my airplane. I suspected the analysis performed, itself absent, was probably non existent. The 43.13 Advisory Circulars don't really describe how they should be done. I see them at work and maintenance of ELA is mandatory (for airliners).

I bought ASTM_F2490 - ELECTRICAL_LOAD_ANALYSIS and it is a vast improvement over the, almost non-existent, AC 43.13 guidance.

There are other ASTM standards adopted by the FAA that do not seem to specifically target the Experimental community. They are announced in the Federal Register as a means of Part 23 Certification Compliance.

I haven't bought any more yet. I really stick to a budget for this sort of trade education.

ASTM F2696-14, STANDARD PRACTICES FOR INSPECTION OF AIRCRAFT WIRING SYSTEMS
ASTM F2799–14, STANDARD PRACTICE FOR MAINTENANCE OF AIRCRAFT WIRING SYSTEMS
ASTM F2483-12, IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDING OF MAJOR REPAIRS AND ALTERATIONS
ASTM F2483-12, MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES

The subject interests me because I was toying with the idea of becoming an FAA Consulting DER.

Anybody have any insight on what FAA's intentions are on all of this? Are these topics going to be dropped from the 43.13?

My posts reflect my personal views and are not in any way endorsed or approved by any organization I'm professionally affiliated with.

 

[rb1957]

I was unaware of the intimate linkage between ASTM specs and FAA rules.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[berkshire]

Konti,
The light sport aircraft category was specifically designed to use ASTM specs rather than FARs, to make it easier to produce and certify light aircraft, than certification under part 23 .
These new specs whilst useful to the Experimental aircraft movement, are not aimed specifically at them.
They are for the somewhat different light sport category. Which is as follows: The Light Sport Aircraft Rule: The FAA defines a light sport aircraft as an aircraft, other than a helicopter or Powered-Lift that, since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
1.Max. Gross Takeoff Weight: 1,320 lbs (600 kg) or 1,430 lbs for seaplanes (650 kg)
2.Max. Stall Speed: 51 mph / 45 knots CAS
3.Max. Speed in Level Flight (at sea level at standard temperature):138 mph / 120 knots CAS
4.Seats: Two (max.)
5.Engines / Motors: One (max. if powered.)
6.Propeller: Fixed-pitch or ground adjustable
7.Cabin: Unpressurized
8.Fixed-pitch, semi-rigid, teetering, two-blade rotor system, if a gyroplane.
9.Landing Gear: Fixed (except for seaplanes and gliders)
It also happens that quite a few older aircraft such as the J3 cub and the Champ meet this category. The significance for users, is that a light sport aircraft can be flown by a pilot using just a drivers license as a substitute for a medical certificate, instead of having to get a third class medical.
The only downside I see is that you have to buy these standards, unlike the FAA publications which you can just download over the internet.
B.E.
EAA tech councilor .



You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[kontiki99]

berkshire,

Although I don't really follow EAA activities that much, I was basically aware of what you're telling me and I have seen that list of specifications before. There is more going on in the industry though, although I don't know how or when it will unfold.

Over the past 5-6 years I've seen several announcements on FAA and Industry activities to overhaul part 23 requirements for certification of NORMAL, UTILITY, ACROBATIC, AND COMMUTER CATEGORY AIRPLANES.

What started me on this, is that I bought and am repairing a 35 year old Grumman Tiger after the OEM essentially closed shop. When I looked into the specifics of working up an Electrical Load Analysis for the Form 337, I found nothing in the legacy Part 23 or Advisory Circular guidance that outlined the requirements. Someone I met through the Grumman social network mentioned his company was referred to ATSM F2490-05 by the FAA.

The specification itself answers my technical questions, the announcement in the federal register states, "By this notice, the FAA finds the revised standards as acceptable means of compliance to 14 CFR part 23 sections concerning electrical wiring systems."

Just being curious, I looked and found other ASTM specs announced in the Federal Register (not on the EAA list). The specification titles lead me to believe the existing guidance is or may soon be obsolete. Where I have been working to the existing guidance (which does seem adequate) I'd like to find out more about what's headed our way.

My posts reflect my personal views and are not in any way endorsed or approved by any organization I'm professionally affiliated with.

 

[berkshire]

Konti,
Back in the 1970s There was a lot of talk about the FAA deferring the specifications for the type certification process to ASTM. The feeling at that time was that the feds were going to get out of the certification business. It never happened. Then later this light sport category showed up driven by ASTM.
Now I think you are right, the ASTM will produce standards that the FAA will endorse, and we will see what was proposed in 1972 coming to fruition.

As an aside, I worked in Savannah Ga. For Grumman American in the experimental dept., on the prototype Ga5 ( Cougar ). I did a little bit of work on the Tiger that Lopresti did the speed mods and the better looking cowling on.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[dgapilot]

There is a move afoot to replace the current Part 23 with ASTM standards just like they did with Light Sport. Not sure how much traction they are getting at this point, but there was a Notice in the Federal Register a couple months ago about setting up a working group. Can't find it now but I do recall seeing it. Keep in mind that FAA relies on lots of other Industry Standards. All the RTCA documents, lots of TSOs refer to either RTCA, ASTM, or SAE. All the old AN and MS specs have been converted over to NASM specs held by AIA. It seems more and more, what the government used to provide for free is being handed off to industry trade groups to manage and now we have to pay for it (all the while our taxes go up).

 

[WKTaylor]

Some maybe-useful MIL-data, this subject...

http://quicksearch.dla.mil/

MIL-HDBK-522 GUIDELINES FOR INSPECTION OF AIRCRAFT ELECTRICAL WIRING INTERCONNECT SYSTEMS
MIL-HDBK-525 ELECTRICAL WIRING INTERCONNECT SYSTEM (EWIS) INTEGRITY PROGRAM
MIL-E-25499 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, AIRCRAFT, DESIGN AND INSTALLATION OF, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR
MIL-E-45782C~ELECTRICAL WIRING, PROCEDURES FOR

USAF T.O. [good luck finding a copy]
USAF T.O. 1-1A-14 INSTALLATION AND REPAIR PRACTICES - VOLUME 1 - AIRCRAFT ELECTRIC AND ELECTRONIC WIRING

http://www.robins.af.mil/library/technicalorders.asp

1-1-689-1 CLEANING AND CORROSION CONTROL VOLUME I CORROSION PROGRAM AND CORROSION THEORY
1-1-689-3 CLEANING AND CORROSION CONTROL VOLUME III AVIONICS AND ELECTRONICS
1-1-689-5 CLEANING AND CORROSION CONTROL VOLUME V CONSUMABLE MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT FOR AVIONICS

http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulator...6CE100677049?OpenDocument&Highlight=corrosion

AC43-206 Inspection, Prevention, Control, and Repair of Corrosion on Avionics Equipment

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/

WRDC-TR-90-4075 FAILURE ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES FOR THE EVALUATION OF ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS IN AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS
WL-TR-95-4004 AIRCRAFT MISHAP INVESTIGATION HANDBOOK FOR ELECTRONIC HARDWARE

IHS? Quicksearch?
AFGS-87219 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS, AIRCRAFT


Regards, Wil Taylor

o Trust - But Verify!
o We believe to be true what we prefer to be true.
o For those who believe, no proof is required; for those who cannot believe, no proof is possible.
o Unfortunately, in science what You 'believe' is irrelevant. ["Orion"]
o Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist. [Picasso]

 

[SWComposites]

ASTM committee F44 is converting Part 23 into ASTM stds. The long term intention is to rewrite (loosen) the requirements with the goal of doubling safety while greatly reducing certification cost. We will see .......

 

[berkshire]

SW,
The long term intention is to rewrite (loosen) the requirements with the goal of doubling safety while greatly reducing certification cost.
That was the stated goal in 1972.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[dgapilot]

Try his link

http://links.govdelivery.com:80/tra...Utility_Acrobatic_Commuter_Airplanes_NPRM.pdf

kontiki99, it won't really impact you and your Tiger. The certification basis of the aircraft will never change, and any alterations will still need to meet the original cert basis.

 

[berkshire]

This is a new video put out by the FAA on the part 23 re write. I personally cannot make any sense of it. To me it is all puff and no substance.
But like all FAA activities there is always another shoe. Make from it what you will. I will understand perfectly if you just red flag it.
The video is under a picture of Michael Huerta with a small red link marked " Video" almost at the end of the article.
B.E.

You are judged not by what you know, but by what you can do.

 

[MOHR1951]

How can the FAA or ASTM not be aware of each others intentions / suggestions. This is simply incredible,we're living in the year 2016 last time I checked,we have electronic communication,there should be no excuse for this lack of communication,some people need to be terminated.Government entities should have no special privileges over private industry.