The FAA is phasing out Designated Engineering Representatives (DERs) according to a blog written by a former FAA Deputy Administrator. (Click the links for much more detail on the proposal.) The blog appeared in the newsletter published by JDA Solutions, a consulting firm made up mostly of former FAA technical and regulatory experts. The essay, written by Sandy Murdock, says the agency wants to get rid of DERs, who are essentially freelance engineers with oversight authority granted by the FAA, in favor of having them becoming part of ODAs, which are Organizational Delegates of Authority usually formed within large companies to handle certification work. The agency issued an order to get the ball rolling on Oct. 1. On Nov. 24, it published a draft of the proposed order in the Federal Register and comments are being accepted until Jan, 23, 2026.
The agency says the change will cut down on its oversight workload because there are a lot fewer ODAs than there are individual DERs. The most prominent example of an ODA is at Boeing, where hundreds of individual experts work on overseeing the development and construction of aircraft and are, in turn, overseen by the ODA, which then answers to the FAA. Although putting DERs in these oversight groups will streamline oversight for the FAA, critics say the change will eliminate the ability for individuals or small companies to design and create new products for aviation. Those concepts would normally be reviewed and guided through the certification process by an individual DER because small firms can’t afford the administrative burden of forming an ODA.
“For decades, the agency depended on an informal network of highly experienced engineers—people who don’t work for the agency, but whom they allowed to navigate their bureaucracy on behalf of aircraft manufacturers, modification shops, and repair facilities that needed approvals faster than the FAA could manage itself,” Murdock wrote. “They were the ones who got things done when the system on its own was just too slow.” The DER who sent this story and other documentation to AvBrief was more blunt. “This is the end of innovation in aviation,” he said.
Countless modifications, products, repair and overhaul processes, and plenty of gadgets owe their existence to the army of more than 3,000 DERs who reviewed, critiqued, and finally smoothed the bureaucratic approval for all of them so they could be sold. “It (the change) seems like it’s focused more on the FAA’S NEEDS THAN INDUSTRY’S OR THE PUBLIC’S, and it’s not obvious that it’s better for safety,” Murdock wrote. “The change brings order, but it also kills the informal ecosystem that made the system work. DERs were the grease in the gears—the people who knew how to interpret gray areas, who could persuade an FAA engineer that a test was sufficient, or who could route a stalled approval to a more competent office across the country.”
The statement “It (the change) seems like it’s focused more on the FAA’S NEEDS THAN INDUSTRY’S OR THE PUBLIC’S, and it’s not obvious that it’s better for safety,” also applies to reducing DPEs in favor of granting flight schools Self Examining Authority.
The desire to reduce oversight is understandable given the number of balls the FAA is juggling, but during my tenure as a DPE I only examined at one flight school that was professional and organized enough to be trusted with examining its own students.
DERs are the most efficient way to bring new technology to aviation. Small business relies on them. Even large businesses that do not want to go through the ODA process, which is pretty onerous for non-aviation companies. If this is true, new product development and PMA replacements for OEM parts will simply stop for General Aviation.
>> If this is true, new product development and PMA replacements for OEM parts will simply stop for General Aviation.<<
Yes… and that would be very good for Textron/Lycoming/ Continental / Cirrus / and others who do not like the competition from outside innovation and improvements to their legacy fleet of aircraft. They want to sell new aircraft!
But it would be very bad for the owners of our aging fleet of aircraft.
Example: The Tornado Alley Turbo developed TNSR22 (2006-2010) is still the fastest piston Cirrus, and on less fuel, and with cooler CHTs, than any Cirrus manufactured since Cirrus changed to the SR22T.
The Whirlwind System IV Turbonormalized Bonanzas are 20 knots faster than any current production Bonanza and the same speed or faster than the current production twin engine Barons.
The OEMs do not like outside innovation!
George
I guess I need help realizing what the draft document changes with regard to DERs. After reviewing this new CHG 1, the original 8900.95D, and comparing that to the historical 8900.95C, I’m just not seeing the drastic changes to the DER landscape. I’m very curious to what the drama is really about and if it is truly legitimate and how it may also trickle down to DARs and DMEs.
What happens when you need to fix a previous IAs poor workmanship and it requires structural engineering to design a repair? Without a DER, you’re sunk. Many aircraft that aren’t supported or are poorly supported by the manufacturer have no new parts available for repairs and will be junked with DERs to step in and provide solutions.
As someone who is in the pipeline for a DER-Y appointment, I am reading this proposed rulemaking and there is absolutely nothing in this language that states that independent DER’s (DER-T) are going away. There are changes to language for DER-Y’s (ODAs), but nothing is going away. I even called the local field office- independent DERs are not going away.
Brian,
George Braly (DER: Engines, Powerplants, Flight Test, FT Analyst)
I have talked to at least 5 DERs over the last six months about this subject. And a couple of folks inside the FAA.
The DERs all report that the FAA’s “collaboration” with the DERs is becoming very challenged. Form 8110-3s are waiting and waiting and waiting – – for many months or years to get any action from the FAA. 3 years ago – – I could get an 8110-3 reviewed and approved (on a “recommend” approval) within typically a week or two, and sometime, same day!
More to the point – – various people inside the FAA have made it clear that their is an ongoing effort by the FAA – – to NOT appoint any new DERs and they want the ones that are already appointed to “go-away”.
The standard “explanation” is “We do not have enough engineers to properly supervise the DERs…”
My impression and experience with the FAA is the same.
24 year DER-T here. Yes, we have been pushed aside as the ugly stepchild for years now while the FAA touts ODA’s as the solution. As I have been a delegate for 5 ODAs now, only 1 ODA was worthy of being trusted with the other 4 doing things I would never approve as a DER. A companies primary job is to make money, not assure aviation safety. I have walked away from 2 ODAs and been walked from 1 due to finding them doing things that violate either Regs or FAA Orders, as that is what the FAA tells us to do as a DER, walk away and not sign. The bell curve has peaked. Aviation safety is in the decline going forward in my opinion.
I tracked down and acquired the STC for modified wing tips on Navion aircraft (subsequently donated to the American Navion Society). While I had the STC, I began research to extend it from covering the original and A-model birds, to the rest of the line that didn’t have tip tanks. The original STC was issued using data from 1960s Air Force studies which was pretty rudimentary. Finding a DER who would engage on the little project was virtually impossible. If the DERs are eliminated (or even reduced in number), simple little product improvements similar to this one will be abandoned.
Just commented at the FAA. Getting DER’s into the ODA that are currently at a place with an ODA might be a good thing. But I wanted to comment so they realize that they can’t go too far with this.
Your references do not say anything about getting rid of DER’s that I could find… they are about updating ODA’s and the DER order.