This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| Part 23 | |
|---|---|
| Name | Part 23 |
| Jurisdiction | United States |
| Issuing authority | Federal Aviation Administration |
| Effective | 1965 (original), revised 2016 |
| Subject | Certification of Normal, Utility, Acrobatic, and Commuter Category Airplanes |
| Related | Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 25, Part 27, Part 29 |
Part 23
Part 23 is a section of the Federal Aviation Regulations administered by the Federal Aviation Administration that prescribes airworthiness standards for the certification of small airplanes in the United States. It establishes the requirements and procedures by which manufacturers such as Cessna, Piper Aircraft, Beechcraft, Cirrus Aircraft, and Mooney Airplane Company demonstrate compliance for models intended for General Aviation roles like flight training, personal transport, and limited commercial operations. Part 23 interacts with other regulatory frameworks including Part 21, Part 43, Part 61, Part 91, and international instruments such as the Convention on International Civil Aviation and agreements with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency.
Part 23 defines airworthiness criteria for category airplanes designated as normal, utility, acrobatic, and commuter, addressing performance, structure, systems, equipment, and operating limitations. It applies technical standards to designs produced by firms including Gulfstream Aerospace, Embraer, Textron Aviation, and smaller builders operating under Federal Aviation Administration oversight or bilateral agreements with agencies like Transport Canada Civil Aviation and Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom). The rule set balances prescriptive criteria and, since the 2016 rewrite, allows means of compliance influenced by industry consensus standards from organizations such as RTCA, Inc., SAE International, ASTM International, and the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics.
Part 23 covers certification for airplanes with maximum takeoff weights, propulsion arrangements, and seating capacities that distinguish them from heavy transport certifications under Part 25 and rotorcraft under Part 27 and Part 29. It specifies when a design must follow Part 23 versus when alternative certification pathways—such as experimental, special light-sport aircraft under Part 21.190, or commuter category under Part 23 prior provisions—are available. The applicability provisions reference procedures under Code of Federal Regulations titles and interface with standards from International Civil Aviation Organization annexes and bilateral airworthiness agreements with authorities such as EASA, Transport Canada, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (Australia).
Airworthiness standards in Part 23 cover structural integrity, flight characteristics, systems and equipment, powerplants, and environmental conditions. Criteria for fatigue and damage tolerance reference methods used by Boeing and Airbus for larger categories while scaled for small-airplane practice. Certification requires compliance demonstrations—flight tests, ground tests, analyses—mirroring protocols from National Transportation Safety Board recommendations and industry test programs like those by Honeywell Aerospace, Garmin, and Collins Aerospace. Means of compliance may include consensus standards such as DO-178C, DO-254, ARP4754A, and AS9100-related quality elements when avionics and complex systems are involved.
Part 23 interfaces with operational rules under Part 91 and maintenance standards under Part 43 and Part 145 repair station regulations. It influences required installed equipment lists that reference items produced by suppliers like Rockwell Collins, Pratt & Whitney, Lycoming Engines, and Garrett AiResearch. Maintenance programs, airworthiness limitations, and continued airworthiness instructions derive from initial certification findings and liaise with service difficulty reporting processes overseen by the FAA and industry reporting platforms, as adopted by operators such as NetJets and flight schools like Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University.
Compliance under Part 23 follows administrative and technical pathways administered by FAA aircraft certification offices and designees including Designated Engineering Representatives and Organization Designation Authorization holders. Applicants submit Type Certificate Data Sheets, issue papers, and compliance checklists and may seek approval via means documented by Advisory Circulars and policy statements issued by the Aircraft Certification Service. International coordination occurs through bilateral agreements with agencies such as EASA and Transport Canada to facilitate Type Certificate validation and export airworthiness certification for manufacturers like Pilatus Aircraft and Diamond Aircraft.
Part 23 originated in mid-20th-century Federal Aviation Regulations and has evolved through multiple amendments tied to safety incidents, technological advances, and policy shifts. Major revisions include harmonization efforts with ICAO principles, incremental amendments prompted by events investigated by the National Transportation Safety Board, and the 2016 rewrite that introduced a performance-based regulatory framework emphasizing DO-178C and consensus standards. Subsequent updates have addressed issues such as traffic collision avoidance systems influenced by TCAS developments, stall-prevention measures debated after incidents involving models like those from Cirrus Aircraft, and avionics cybersecurity concerns referenced by Department of Homeland Security advisories.
Part 23 shapes design, production, and lifecycle practices for manufacturers including Cessna, Piper Aircraft, Cirrus Aircraft, Diamond Aircraft, and Beechcraft. It affects procurement of avionics from Garmin and Avidyne, powerplants from Lycoming and Continental Motors, and supplier quality systems tied to AS9100. Operators—from flight schools such as Purdue University to charter firms like Flexjet—adapt operations, training, and maintenance programs to comply with airworthiness limitations and continued airworthiness directives issued under Part 23. The rule's modern emphasis on consensus standards and performance-based criteria has accelerated adoption of advanced avionics, single-pilot autopilots, and safety systems promoted by organizations including Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association and General Aviation Manufacturers Association.