Congressman Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.), whose district includes Wichita, has introduced a House bill to implement changes in the certification process for light general aviation aircraft. H.R.1848, the “Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013,” has already been referred to the House aviation subcommittee for further legislative action.

In a report filed with the FAA last month, the FAA’s Part 23 Reorganization Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) made recommendations that would–as stated by FAAAdministrator Michael Huerta–double safety and cut certification costs in half for small general aviation aircraft.

Part 23 outlines FAA certification standards for most light civil aircraft weighing less than 12,500 pounds. If enacted into law, H.R.1848 would require the FAA to implement the ARC recommendations by the end of calendar year 2015.

The ARC recommended setting performance-based design requirements, rather than prescriptive, technology-dependent requirements that rely on assumptions based on weight and propulsion type. Adopting the new regulations would simplify the current process and give manufacturers needed flexibility by allowing them to achieve compliance through consensus-based standards.

Citing the significant time and cost necessary under the current certification process as the primary hindrance to the introduction of new and substantially revised aircraft, Pompeo emphasized the ARC recommendations would also spur needed innovation in the aircraft manufacturing sector by streamlining the existing certification process for most new GA aircraft and equipment.

“The existing outdated certification process needlessly increases the cost of safety and technology upgrades by up to 10 times,” Pompeo said in introducing the legislation. “With this bill, we can ensure that the general aviation industry has what it needs to thrive.”

General aviation interests hailed Pompeo’s bill. According to the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), the current rules–which it describes as overly prescriptive, rigid and outdated–have hindered new safety-enhancing products coming to market and hurt the lighter segments of the GA market.

The offices of startup Surf Air look more like those of a new software developer, with laptop-wielding engineers tapping away on keyboards, whiteboards sprawling with multi-colored to-do lists and, of course, surf boards hanging on a back wall. These are not decorations, according to co-founder Wade Eyerly; employees are welcome to grab a board and haul it to the nearby beach in Santa Monica, Calif., for some relaxing and perhaps inspiring wave-riding action.

Eyerly and crew, including his brother David, are not carving out a new niche in the software world but are designing software, processes and a safety infrastructure to make their nascent airline take off. Surf Air is targeting what its founders see as an unserved niche, the desire for travelers to move swiftly and efficiently between cities in California, not on a typical airline jet or charter airplane, but in Pilatus PC-12s flown by two pilots on a regular schedule.

This unusual setup–an airline using single-engine turboprops flying on a schedule–requires cooperation from the FAA, in the form of approval of a Part 135 charter certificate in the commuter category. Surf Air has applied for the 135 certificate and is awaiting FAA approval to begin flying customers. Three PC-12s are ready and waiting at Burbank Airport, and flight crews are ready to train and start flying.

Surf Air got its genesis when Eyerly, an intelligence officer and former aide to vice president Dick Cheney who traveled 27 days out of every month, and his brother began brainstorming business ideas in 2005, eventually coming up with the idea of a small airline. They spent weekends and spare time picking apart the concept, analyzing data and figuring out what might work. Finally, in June 2011, they put a placeholder website online to see if it would attract any attention. Six weeks later, 12,000 people had signed up.

On Nov. 11, 2011, the brothers pitched the idea to friends, family, entrepreneurs, data scientists, lawyers and accountants at a two-day event. “We laid out all of our data and the response we had online,” Eyerly recalled, “and asked, ‘Are we nuts?’ Four or five of the folks who were there said, ‘Not only are you onto something, we’ll leave our jobs to help you do it.’” Eyerly, his brother and other new Surf Air partners moved to California to bring the airline to life. MuckerLab, a Los Angeles start-up company accelerator, is helping launch Surf Air, along with other investors.

What the research showed is that there are 53 routes where Surf Air could fly profitably in the U.S.; these routes duplicate the Obama administration’s plans for high-speed rail city pairs. Most non-commercial airports in the U.S. are highly underutilized, Eyerly said, with 90 percent at only 25 percent of capacity. Part 121 airlines can’t fly into non-Part 139 airports, but a Part 135 commuter airline flying airplanes weighing less than 12,500 pounds can fly almost anywhere. “That was our first epiphany,” he said.

Airline business models haven’t changed much, but the level of service has. “Now you fly because you have to,” he explained, “not because it’s any great privilege.” Buying an airline ticket is just a one-off purchase, and while airline frequent-flier programs do try to create loyalty, there is no compelling reason for a passenger to be faithful to a particular airline. It’s more profitable for the airlines to fly their hub-and-spoke system, regardless of the fact that passengers want to go from one specific location to another without having to fly somewhere else first. “It’s inefficient, it’s not good for the environment, there’s a host of negatives, but it’s the way the airlines figured out how to make it all work,” he said.

Dude, Where’s My Plane?

 READ MORE:   AinOnline