New FAA Policy Installing "Safety Related" Equipme

[Vtaildriver]

Looks like the majority of 337's will be going by the wayside for "Safety Related Equipment" as the FAA will start to follow this new policy document.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... 8-1602.pdf


Page 32 and 33 of this online magazine
http://www.faa.gov/news/safety_briefing ... ug2016.pdf

Chris

[chazdevil]

So, under the heading of stability and control, auto pilots.
Does that open the door for non-TSO's autopilots ??[/i]

[Vtaildriver]

Short answer based on what I read is yes. The long answer involves several steps that must be taken.

#1 The manufacturer of the autopilot must follow the policy statement (pages 3-9 of the policy doc) and receive a LOA from the Chicago ACO (pages 11 & 12 of the policy doc)

#2 There needs to be a determination by the installing mechanic that the equipment is going to be a "minor change" to type design for your aircraft.

This will need to be explained further by the FAA since this new policy doc can create confusion among IA's and local FSDO's trying to apply the major vs minor Appendix A in Part 43 and AC 120-77.

[aero101]

I read into notice that auto pilot would not be easy approval due to failure modes and control of aircraft could be impacted... For example run away trim? Looks to me like if no failure modes affecting aircraft should be simple approval? This certainly doesn't replace Field Approvals as it's not going to be a FSDO function, but will be done by ACO?

[chazdevil]

I've never got past the sticker shock pertaining to the cost of a certified A/P.
Always taken the stance I'm paying lots of money for the ability to fly my aircraft. Why would I pay lots of $$ for a machine to?
However, flying some friends experimental a with those trick Dynon rate based jobs was sweet.
It'd make eating a sandwich easier!
This should erase the debate over LED lights also.
Nifty. [/u]

[Vtaildriver]

Anyone going to Oshkosh next week, please ask around to the different experimental avionics manufacturers as to whether or not they will be seeking NORSEE certification and post your responses on the forum.



Chris

[Vtaildriver]

Actually I just received a numbing headache after finding out that this new policy somehow did not make it into law. The policy was suppose to be in HR 636 sec 2225.

This is what was proposed
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... 81e5b4f4fb

This is what was signed into law
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... 16428FAD77

I do wonder what politics were involved in removing this provision.

Chris

[aero101]

Well, at least medical reform has made it thru the process after how many years? And some portions are not as simple as was advertised, but still better then nothing!! FAA will still have lots of discretion at their fingertips if they so decide for many conditions... And will be interesting how many general practitioner's are going to be ready to sign off on patients ability due to liability issues and way the statement reads... You may still need the AME!!