In very, very short terms: they classify failures by the resulting danger from nuisance to catastrophe. Then they analyze the units leading to the failure. Risk and technical details of every relevant potential failure have to be separately documented.
They principally will certify a homebuilt for IFR, if
-standard aviation material and method is used
-non-important parts don’t interfere
-navigation and communication are redundant and independent
-attitude and altitude are redundant and certified. If the same manufacturer provides the exact same product as certified as well as non-certified, a non-certified product is acceptable.
Thus well documented professional build to aviation standards/workmanship plus truly redundant nav/com plus certified (or non-certified sibling) truly redundant attitude information and altitude information plus a detailed risk analysis will be sufficient. That’s a sensation.
That sounds a bit like the UK LAA IFR scheme except the LAA does some flight testing and has stability and control response requirements. And which has more or less ground to a stop due to a lack of manpower.
Is there anything about lightning or electrostatic resistance? The LAA system describes in its reports (produced by an outside consultancy I think) that the risk is negligible.
No, it is not mentioned
Good translation, a_kraut. Indeed its a sensation that the LBA is moving. It is dep. T3, qualified and quick. Not always the standard at LBA. There has been a lot of work previously in the background I’m sure. The first planes could be some Vans. They fly for years and years under IMC in the states. Time now has come for Europe.
That’s a Single seater/tandem cockpit?
N748AK is a Vans RV-8, tandem two sealer.