A new FAA policy encourages general aviation aircraft owners to voluntary install safety equipment on airplanes and helicopters that is not required by the agency’s regulations.
The new policy will reduce costs and streamline the installation of Non-Required Safety Enhancing Equipment (NORSEE) into the general aviation fleet, according to FAA officials.
The policy is the result of industry and government collaboration under the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee and expands a 2014 policy that simplified the design approval requirements for an angle of attack (AOA) indicator.
Aspen Avionics AOA
AOA devices can be added to small planes to supplement airspeed indicators and stall warning systems, alerting pilots of a low airspeed condition before an aerodynamic stall occurs. Such stalls are particularly dangerous during takeoff and landing.
NORSEE includes avionics, electronic instruments, displays and mechanical equipment. Equipment approved as NORSEE increases overall situational awareness; provides additional information other than the aircraft primary system; provides independent warning, cautionary, or advisory indications; and provides additional occupant safety protection.
Examples of NORSEE equipment include traffic advisory systems, terrain awareness and warning systems; attitude indicators; fire extinguishing systems; and autopilot or stability augmentation systems.
Garmin 750 with TAWS
The policy has the flexibility to accommodate the installation of new technology safety enhancements into Part 23, 27, and 29 aircraft that are determined to be a minor change to type design, FAA officials explained. The benefits must outweigh the risk.
The policy will reduce equipment costs by allowing the applicants the flexibility to select various industry standards that suit their product, as long as it meets the FAA’s minimum design requirements.
NORSEE approval under this policy is not an approval for installation on the aircraft – it just makes the equipment eligible for installation on the aircraft. There may be a situation in which installation of the equipment on the aircraft requires modifications that are considered a major change to type design, or major alteration to the aircraft. In these cases, the applicant is required to pursue the appropriate certification path (such as a supplemental type certificate), or field approval process, regardless of the “non-required” designation.
The FAA’s online list of approvals will be updated regularly.
Be a better informed pilot.
Join over 110,000 readers each month and get real-world news and information direct to your inbox, each day.
The concern that I have is about the extraordinarily high rate of failure of the Aspen units – you show the Aspen PFD and MFD in this article, but my concern is the reliance on these units where the tech staff claim to have a “mere 7% failure rate” but, in my experience, it has been much, much higher.
If you have an AOA indicator what does one do when the system crashes or you get that famous big red X across the Aspen screen? You would be toast unless you have backup gauges.
I would look for other products, perhaps. There are many options.
Non-Required Safety Enhancing Equipment (NORSEE), is NON-REQUIRED, the “back-up” is the required equipment. This has been the rub for quite some time, owners wish to replace, not augment, there approved systems. Adding things is often easy replacing an item whether electrical or structural is when it becomes difficult and very expensive.If it can be added with out meeting the requirements of a major alteration then the A&P can do it. If it is a major alteration, then a field approval is needed and the FSDO should be able to get you one. If it involves structural mod. with out approved data then the FSDO will send it to the ACO and you will likely need to go the much more involved STC route.
“Reduce costs and streamline the installation”….not a fat chance if you head down the STC path. If someone, somewhere really wanted to improve safety, they would get their head out of the sand and STREAMLINE the FIELD APPROVAL process and put the authority of doing this back at the local level, with the local FAA employees using common sense and basic technical abilities. This CAN BE DONE…IT REALLY CAN!!!
No one wants to do anything that would jeopardize their jobs or their retirement and that, my fellow aviator, is where the discussion ends-safety driven or not.
I totally agree with your comments. I thought there was real hope with what the article started off stating. Then all hope was lost when it said some items will require an STC. To me that was code for anything more than an angle of attack indicator will require an STC.