New draft AC on the subject of avionics approvals on the CASA website may be useful for some people.

Creamy my learned friend why would you won't to know that for that's a little off topic and as I said I'm not going into that at all. And stop with the girls names just showing what a fool you are.

Cheers

Finally - some agreement from the LAME:D

I'm not at all sure that's how the CASA regulatory boffins see things. I would be much more comfortable were someone to cite an authoritative reference to support the suggestion that if it's a plug and play you don't require an EO - inferring that there is no need for additional assessment.

FAR 23 Subpart F and, in particular, FAR 23.1309, is a wide-ranging animal and offers all sorts of opportunities for the unwary to get it slightly, or significantly, wrong ... I can't help but think that some folk here might be setting themselves up for a potential fall ? The litigation, post mishap, has great potential for financial ruin if you get it wrong ..

I'm not an electrical chap but, having seen some of the undesirable permutations and combinations of which gremlins are capable ..

John you are correct in that an assessment is required but that can be done by the installer. However any change in the installation then it must be covered by an supporting document. In most cases this will have to be an EO mainly due not two aircraft are ever the same as a rule. But with the Triq as an example it is possible to change it as it requires nothing other than to slide it into the rack. Some Cessna VHF radios are the same.

Cheers