Non-certified avionics

[Invisibleman]

I see a post from back in 2014 about the use of non-certified ("experimental") avionics.  I didn't find any discussion here, more recent.  

There is an ariticle in Flying mag about Dynon getting STC'd for some of its avionics in some aircraft.   https://www.flyingmag.com/non-certified-avionics-coming-to-certified-airplanes/.  

I looked over the MOSAIC of part 23 revision, but that seems mostly to do with the manufacturing of new aircraft, and not avionics.

Anyone no more on this?  Sure would be nice to use Garmin "experimental" avionics in general aviation as the price is almost "affordible". I'm sure there is no lack of quality there.

[midlifeflyer]

Some manufacturers make avionics for both the certified and experimental/LSA markets. You give the example of Dynon which, after years in the E/LSA market, decided to take the steps for certified aircraft.

Garmin is in both markets. I’ve flown LSA with Garmin as long ago as maybe 15 years. The G5 and the G3X were both originally created in the E/LSA market.

[sdmideas]

This is a fun question;) I’ve had the good luck to run into a very useful document from a fellow up in Oregon who has been kind enough to allow me to share.

tso_pamphlet.pdf

[Yetti]

It depends.   Rules or Laws.

TSO is for a manufacture.  The TSO has been made law.  https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-21/subpart-O  The FAA issues Manufactures a TSO saying they can build certified equipment.    The Manufacturer issue a certificate that says their equipment complies with the standards.

Here is a fun one.    The Dynon STC that I paid for says Autopilot on it.   The Autopilot software installed in the unit in the plane.    (The Auto Pilot Software is also installed in the Backup Dynon D-10A unit)

But the FAA has more rules for Autopilots, so I am not allowed to put some servos in the plane and use the Autopilot Software.

 

Now apply the Chevron ruling to the FAA Rules

 

[Pinecone]

52 minutes ago, Yetti said:

The TSO has been made law.  https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/chapter-I/subchapter-C/part-21/subpart-O 

Small point, but 14 CFR is not law.  It is regulations.

Congress promulgates laws.  President signs them into law.  Federal Agencies come up with regulations in accordance with the power and authority of the law.  And to give specific info on the way to meet the law.

[Yetti]

On 1/2/2025 at 2:34 PM, Pinecone said:

Small point, but 14 CFR is not law.  It is regulations.

Congress promulgates laws.  President signs them into law.  Federal Agencies come up with regulations in accordance with the power and authority of the law.  And to give specific info on the way to meet the law.

I think you are correct here.    So is the only law that congress made is to say the FAA should make flying safe.  The rest is just made up rules that could go out the window in light of the Chevron Ruling.

[Pinecone]

The process is that the regulations are based on the laws.   

The Chevron ruling deals with how the agency deals with how they interpret the regulations they right.

[midlifeflyer]

16 hours ago, Yetti said:

The rest is just made up rules that could go out the window in light of the Chevron Ruling.

It’s easy to overestimate the effect of the Relentless and Loper Bright cases (which overturned Chevron). At a baseline, neither Chevron nor these cases were about creating regulations. That process is directly authorized and controlled by the legislation governing the agency and the Administrative Procedures Act. Those regulations, unless successfully challenged claiming the agency had no authority to make them or followed improper procedures, have the force of law.

The cases are about agency interpretation of the regulations properly made, and mainly say, that the courts should not automatically defer to those interpretations.  
 

• “The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” 
  

A court making an independent judgement of the metes and bounds of an agency’s authority when reviewing a regulation or its meaning is  a very different thing than “out the window.” I don’t expect to see too many cases raising that flag and expect to see the courts side with the agency in most of them.

[Pinecone]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

It’s easy to overestimate the effect of the Relentless and Loper Bright cases (which overturned Chevron). At a baseline, neither Chevron nor these cases were about creating regulations. That process is directly authorized and controlled by the legislation governing the agency and the Administrative Procedures Act. Those regulations, unless successfully challenged claiming the agency had no authority to make them or followed improper procedures, have the force of law.

The cases are about agency interpretation of the regulations properly made, and mainly say, that the courts should not automatically defer to those interpretations.  
 

• “The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” 

A court making an independent judgement of the metes and bounds of an agency’s authority when reviewing a regulation or its meaning is  a very different thing than “out the window.” I don’t expect to see too many cases raising that flag and expect to see the courts side with the agency in most of them.

This ^^^^^^^

But it may have an effect on making the regulations say exactly what the agency wants, rather than being loose and having them change the interpretations at a whim.

[midlifeflyer]

4 hours ago, Pinecone said:

This ^^^^^^^

But it may have an effect on making the regulations say exactly what the agency wants, rather than being loose and having them change the interpretations at a whim.

That's a excellent point. For most regulations, I think much of the looseness is just poor drafting or not thinking of some of the consequences of the language, so it may well mean being more careful. But there are also those areas - offhand I think the poster child is probably the fuzzy border between Parts 91 and 135 - where I think the published regulations are intentionally susceptible to multiple interpretations because of all the new and clever ways people argue around it. I don't really expect to see a change from "if it quacks like a duck". More like the Court of Appeals' statement in the Warbird case about deference:

"Because we conclude that the regulation is unambiguous and covers Warbird's conduct (Warbird does not contest the ALJs under-lying  factual  determinations),  we  need  not  address  Warbird's  remaining arguments about the FAA's interpretation of this regulation."

Thinking back to Trent Palmer, deference wasn't even an issue discussed by the court (except for the penalty).

[Yetti]

On 1/9/2025 at 7:17 AM, midlifeflyer said:

It’s easy to overestimate the effect of the Relentless and Loper Bright cases (which overturned Chevron). At a baseline, neither Chevron nor these cases were about creating regulations. That process is directly authorized and controlled by the legislation governing the agency and the Administrative Procedures Act. Those regulations, unless successfully challenged claiming the agency had no authority to make them or followed improper procedures, have the force of law.

The cases are about agency interpretation of the regulations properly made, and mainly say, that the courts should not automatically defer to those interpretations.  
 

• “The Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.” 

A court making an independent judgement of the metes and bounds of an agency’s authority when reviewing a regulation or its meaning is  a very different thing than “out the window.” I don’t expect to see too many cases raising that flag and expect to see the courts side with the agency in most of them.

It will be interesting to see.   Let's say the EPA was disbanded under the incoming Administration.   What happens to all the rules they generated?    At least in Texas there are duplicative rules and an Agency to pick up some of the void.   

I am entertained by the ability of the Executive Branch Administration to create Government.      There is this thing called PAYGO that Biden exempted the Administrative Government from when he came in.   PAYGO was congresses way to get control of the spending.