Now does this really mean we may see eg. uncertified autopilots in certified aircraft?
Hard to believe, but that would be a major factor to reduce upgrade costs…
I don’t think an autopilot is either a minor change to type design, nor does it automatically have only minor failure conditions (Think Trim runaway, blocked Servos, etc.)
But this could be applicable to many TAS/TCAS, MFD, NAV/GPS, XPDR, weather display, Golze-boxes, engine monitors…
I don’t think an autopilot is either a minor change to type design, nor does it automatically have only minor failure conditions (Think Trim runaway, blocked Servos, etc.)
That is exactly the reason why I am surprised that the linked document explicitly mentions autopilots.
I have read comments in the USA that this could cause the bottom to drop out of a large part of the certified avionics business.
It would also wipe out a lot of installer margins because 25% of 2k (uncertified) is a lot less than 25% of 10k (certified), but the installation labour is the same. And I bet you there will be more warranty comebacks because while there is a lot of crap in the certified scene, there is even more crap in the uncertified scene. Some of the stuff I have seen insides of is out of the bottom end of the spare-garage type of operation, below the build quality required for a remotely controlled garage door opener.
Currently anybody can design and make avionics for homebuilts. You don’t need even the sham QA scheme known as ISO9000, etc.
So while this has the potential of bringing big benefits to light GA, not everybody is going to support it.
It’s also going to make EASA look particularly ridiculous, and will make N-reg the undisputed registry of choice for Europe 
And you can guess what EASA is going to think of N-regs flying around with uncertified boxes.
OTOH EASA might jump on this too…
That’s unless non-CofA Euro-reg aircraft get free VFR and IFR privileges, which IMHO will never happen because the regs are all national and in most cases there is zero driving force in the national CAAs to change them.
" It would also wipe out a lot of installer margins because 25% of 2k (uncertified) is a lot less than 25% of 10k (certified), but the installation labour is the same."
Whilst the dealer price does normally does include a 25% discount (some are less) no-one ever retails at list, so isn’t making anything like the margins you’re suggesting. The normal retail margin is typically 10-15%.
Funny that… I always paid full list, AFAIK.
But my point stands… X% of 2k is less than X% of 10k.
The FAA is not stupid and they are really careful to not introduce undesirable precedents, so the inclusion of autopilots is massively significant.
Obviously this is great news but I just hope there isn’t a backlash, especially in Europe.
There is always a catch. Mode S transponders and 8.33 kHz radios for instance. There is no requirement that any of this must be certified in a non certified aircraft in Europe. But the “radio authority” and the airspace require these gadgets to adhere to certain performance specs. To show conformance to those specs is way out of reach for a normal person, so the only way to get the required radio and transponder is to purchase ETSO certified equipment.
An airplane manufacturer could of course manage to show conformance of of non certified equipment without actually certify it. But I don’t think we know all the implications this kind of system will create. I don’t think this kind of system will be any simpler.
Post moved from here
By the way – I am sure in the AOPA magazine 12-24 months ago there was all sorts of chat about “certified” Aircraft being able to benefit from the sort of Avionics that were seen in the non-certified sector. Also at that time, Grant Shapps working on deregulation.
Then in April 2016 it was announced that the Dynon EFIS d10a could be installed in a PA28 but not sure if in the US or EU land?
Is some deregulation about to happen in the EU or is it all more complicated?
Thanks – Archer 181
From here
Speaking of certificates of conformity, their use seems to have precipitated a recent scandal with VAL Avionics and their non-TSO NAV/COM systems. FAA issued an unapproved part notice, local copy whereas VAL countered with this. local copy What a mess…
On a quick read this appears that the FAA says you need TSO avionics (which is true, although merely demonstrating compliance with TSO should also meet the regs; we did this before) while VAL’s response is a mixed bag of stuff which doesn’t mean a lot; in particular their major/minor alternation discussion seems to be irrelevant.
