Avionics News July 2016 - 11

The evolutionary change with Part 23 was a 10-year effort
to scrub the legacy regulations to retain the foundational safety
standards while eliminating the prescriptive regulatory language that would deter technological advances. The other evolutionary change is the advancement of public, industry-driven, consensus standards as acceptable means of compliance
to the safety standards. In the modern, risk-based approach
to safety, the international aviation authorities are using this
approach to Part 23 certification to focus their resources: the
traditional development, publication and management of guidance material doesn't provide the risk-return needed for the
resources demanded of a fast-moving industry. The solution is
to allow industry to develop, publish and manage an "acceptable means of compliance" while retaining the unique government acceptance and/or approval of the standards. This is not
too distant from the current application and approval process
for alternative means of compliance. AMOCs are often submitted by type clubs or other special-interest groups with the
technical knowledge to develop, submit and defend a proposal
to the resident authority for approval. Essentially, the same
process will be used here.
The evolutionary use of consensus standards by the FAA is not
new or novel. As early as 1982, the U.S. Office of Management
and Budget had published Circular A-119. Revised multiple times
over the years, OMB Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the
Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in
Conformity Assessment Activities, was codified as P.L. 104-113
and titled the National Technology Transfer Act of 1995.
In the 1993 revision to OMB Circular A-119, Leon Panetta,
then the director of the OMB, wrote:
"Government functions often involve products or services
that must meet reliable standards. Many such standards,
appropriate or adaptable for the government's purposes,
are available from private voluntary standards bodies.
Government participation in the standards-related activities
of these voluntary bodies provides incentives and opportunities to establish standards that serve national needs, and the
adoption of voluntary standards, whenever practicable and
appropriate, eliminates the cost to the government of developing its own standards."
The concept of leveraging standards is a key element of
the evolution of aviation and the advancements of new technologies. As Homo habilis evolved into Homo sapiens, so are
the Civil Aeronautics Board aircraft evolving into the modern
aircraft of today.
This leads us to the other "revolutionary" change this year:
the FAA allowance of noncertified avionics in certified aircraft.
Again, headline woes. Kudos to the Experimental Aircraft

Association for leading the charge. However, there truly isn't
anything revolutionary in this action. Let's look at the facts.
First, the component manufacturer (Dynon) produces a
non-FAA approved basic EFIS for the experimental, amateurbuilt and LSA communities. These communities do not
require specific FAA production approvals for components.
They are primarily overseen by the manufacturer under basic
business performance contracts.
Second, the applicant (EAA) applied for a supplemental type
certificate to replace vacuum-driven attitude indicators of legacy
aircraft with the Dynon EFIS (functioning as an attitude indicator). Because the Dynon D-10 lacks any FAA pedigree, for this
application, it is essentially a commercial part.
Third, the specific Dynon EFIS make and model was
identified and included in the STC as a commercial (non-aviation) part and subsequently "approved" for a specific application via the STC. Therefore, it is no longer "experimental
avionics." While it lacks production approval under the traditional TSO and PMA routes, it does meet the requirements
via the STC for installation on certified aircraft limited to
the applicability of the STC. Again, this is not new or novel.
AEA member shops (and manufacturers) have used this
mechanism for nonrequired equipment, specifically cabin
equipment, for generations.
As with every STC applicant, the EAA made application to the local FAA Aircraft Certification Office for the
proposed STC. The applicant, like many of you have done,
submitted the engineering support, the proposed limitations,
the quality system for "its" parts (produced by Dynon) and
showed compliance to the requisite Part 23 regulations. Once
it demonstrated that the proposal satisfied the regulations to
the FAA's satisfaction, the FAA granted the STC.
Is this somehow revolutionary? No, not at all. It does,
however, demonstrate an evolutionary approach of the FAA
safety continuum toward the majority of Part 23 aircraft in
the fleet - the legacy Class 1 and 2 Part 23/CAR 3 aircraft.
I think the most interesting part of this is the overall reaction
that the evolutionary change would take place in "our backyard." While the AEA has included briefings on the Part 23
rulemaking activities regularly during the past decade, including
the development of the FAA's safety continuum, it still caught
everyone off guard. When this "first-of-a-kind" application was
introduced earlier this year, it became the topic of conversation
at the AEA Convention in Orlando. After a description of the
change, everyone agreed yes, it's great. But nearly all who were
involved in the conversations challenged that the first advancement was in our sector. It reminded me of the acronym NIMBY
- not in my backyard! q
avionics news

july

2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Avionics News July 2016