Shawn,
Hard call that one.
But where do you draw the line being the question. They moved once on this one already so it may be a long time for the next one.
The other question is why the 429 could not meet Part 29 in the beginning? I know that the following is an issue -
Both cooling fans are driven by the tail-rotor drive shaft and a single failure will cause loss of function of both. This does not meet the Category A requirements.
How much is already Part 29 compliant as other manufacturers of Part 27 aircraft have done?
I am sure there is pressure from other manufacturers crying "foul" on this one as well.
The part I find weird is the relevance of following to allow an increase to the weight:
(CVR/FDR, HTAWS, Rad.Alt., Dual Autopilot and bird repellent device[forward flashing lights]
CVR/FDR - The CVR probably doesn't make sense in a SP operation i.e. Unless the pilot is mad and talks to himself vocally. The FDR may increase safety in the long term and only after the fact.
(Both of the above are currently only required when more than 10 pax are carried.)
Rad Alt - given
Dual Autopilot - given although an SPIFR Part 27 machine would have one already. Is this to provide redundancy that the single autopilot currently "doesn't" have? i.e. failback to SAS?
Bird repellent device - I would love to see the data on exactly how effective it is. What about the birds that dont have eyes in the back of their heads? A noticeable downside of quieter aircraft i.e. EC 135 is it can be quite discerning as to how much closer you get to birds before they react so maybe hearing is the more relevant sensory function.
To date the increase in weight is taken up by TC (obviously), NZ CAA and Thailand?
Maybe "a cold day in hell" comes to mind?