CTR-sorry-it was a longer,involved sentence:
“Provokes a question. The 525 certification process was via " Special Conditions ", I think, as Part 29 and the attendant Advisory Circular do not yet address the totality of the FBW implications.If that is correct, then CTR is proposing ( I think? ) that everyone else is bound by a Special Condition agreed upon by Bell and the FAA, but no one else, that is not yet published as 14 CFR Part 29 and therefore is not law?”
The point I was getting at was:
1. The FAA told Bell they would not approve a unique trim cyclic.
2. Therefore Bell did not provide one.
3. The clear implication was that a unique trim cyclic wasn’’t certifiable, i.e., if Bell couldn’t do it neither could anyone else.
4. But remember, this is a Special Condition applying to the 525.
5. Bell’s Special Conditions are not in 14 CFR Part 29, thus are not law as far as say Boeing or Sikorsky proposing a unique trim controller.