Don't casa have to approve avionics in experimental? Where does it say that in black and white? You are making an inference based on casa current interpretations of its rules and exemptions. You are trying to make a positive assertion from negative evidence.
Where does it say in the regs that "experimental aircraft can use any avionics they like"? It doesn't! You simply interpret casa passivity at the moment for permission.
I have already been told that entry into controlled airspace requires a casa approved radio. Your transponder setup must be approved as well.
All it takes is a new interpretation of "major modification" to include software or firmware upgrades and you are back getting re-approved sweetheart.
This is the trouble with all GA and recreational aviation; there are no firm foundations that guarante our existence. We live in a realm of exemptions and interpretations - all of which can be removed or changed at will.
Being a member of what I call the fact based community, I have trouble dealing with the endless stream of dodgy interpretations from casa and elsewhere. Hard information is difficult to find (and yes, I have had private communications saying "don't worry about this because xxxx says he is not going to enforce it or Yyyy is going to change the rules" but that is hardly satisfactory is it?
What passes for "fact" is usually a chain that goes something like this:
"Regulations abc says thronomisters must always be of an approved type, but exemption 1234 says an unapproved thronomister can be fitted to category xyz, and regulation 5678 says GA aircraft are category efg and exemption 7891 says experimental aircraft aren't category efg, so experimental must be category xyz because we aren't efg according to FOI Bloggs, so we can fit unapproved thronomisters". Nowhere does it say "experimental aircraft can fit an unapproved thronomister" in plain English. Maybe I'm just simple. I can read and make sense of 100+ page contracts for many millions of dollars but I lack the sense to understand aviaition regulations.
To put that another way, we exist because we have not (yet) been prohibited. There is no positive affirmation of our right to exist.
To put that in perspective, how many would be builders and pilots take one look at the regulations and decide to take up golf instead?
PS Squawk, Amber fluid and vino don't figure prominently in my diet, seven hours driving is more to the point, half in rain. I'm looking forward to Ausfly.
Last edited by Sunfish; 3rd Sep 2015 at 11:53.