 |
Matronics Email Lists Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
mrobert569(at)hotmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements of FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 respectively. So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the standards of the those TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the testing standards in FAR 43 they will meet the TSO's. The electronic standards of today's world meet or exceed the TSO requirements of yesterdays world. Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they designed and built their units. I had the chance to speak with the folks from Dynon at length several years ago when then D10 first came out, as I was concerned about this very issue.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
From: wgill10(at)comcast.net
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:19:29 +0000
[quote] Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
[quote]-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
.ExternalClass .EC_hmmessage P {padding:0px;} .ExternalClass EC_body.hmmessage {font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma;} Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
[quote] Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
From: kellym(at)aviating.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
--> RV-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
No mention of TSO at all.
If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
mention of TSO.
In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> the FAA and their own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> they are wrong.
>
> My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> avionics shop for this simple requirement.
>
> I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> --
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail. Guest
|
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
So how about the GPS moving map (Blue Mtn EFIS one) being used for a GPS approach? It isn't TSO'd. Would I use the same arguement? If I have the altimeter, pitot/static system & transponder & encoder inspected can I do approaches using features in my EFIS/one?
Greg
On Nov 14, 2007 12:30 PM, Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com (mrobert569(at)hotmail.com)> wrote:
[quote] If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements of FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 respectively. So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the standards of the those TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the testing standards in FAR 43 they will meet the TSO's. The electronic standards of today's world meet or exceed the TSO requirements of yesterdays world. Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they designed and built their units. I had the chance to speak with the folks from Dynon at length several years ago when then D10 first came out, as I was concerned about this very issue.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
From: wgill10(at)comcast.net (wgill10(at)comcast.net)
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com (rv-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:19:29 +0000
[quote]
Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
[quote]-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mike Robertson < mrobert569(at)hotmail.com (mrobert569(at)hotmail.com)>
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
[quote] For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
mention of TSO.
In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
darnpilot(at)aol.com (darnpilot(at)aol.com) wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> the FAA and their own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> they are wrong.
>
> My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> avionics shop for this simple requirement.
>
> I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> --
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
darnpilot(at)aol.com Guest
|
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
All:
I had a heart-to-heart with the Orlando FSDO today. A conference call with the [troublesome] Inspector and his boss. The Inspector was belligerent and arrogant, stating unequivocally that I was wrong. The only quarter he would give was that I should send him the information I had for his review. I said I would and did (via email).Â
His boss was very quiet on the call, and at the end I pressed him for an opinion. He said to send the information and he would ensure its review. Well, this afternoon I got a call from the Inspector. He was (to his credit) very soft-spoken and (my impression) contrite. He said it "looked like" it was possible to do what I wanted, and said that by tomorrow he would have a final answer. Yea!
I suspect that my call with him and his boss got the ball rolling, and I further suspect that the EAA (whom I contacted about this) may have made an inquiry or two.
I think I have may have gotten this resolved. Principle is sometimes a good thing to stand up for. Now those coming behind me will have an easier time, and I will not have to hunt down a shop to get my IFR done.
I'll let you know what tomorrow brings.
Thanks for all the replies, opinions, and help.
Jeff
--
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
wdleonard(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:53 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
Now there is one that won't work. The GPS must meet the standards of the
TSO. Those standards include RAIM and other specifics in the presentation
of the the data the Bluemountain does not have. If Greg would just add
RAIM, then we might be able to use that GPS as a substitute for DME on
approaches, but right now you cant use it other than situational awareness.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
On Nov 14, 2007 1:53 PM, Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com> wrote:
[quote] So how about the GPS moving map (Blue Mtn EFIS one) being used for a GPS
approach? It isn't TSO'd. Would I use the same arguement? If I have the
altimeter, pitot/static system & transponder & encoder inspected can I do
approaches using features in my EFIS/one?
Greg
On Nov 14, 2007 12:30 PM, Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com> wrote:
> If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements
> of FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the
> altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and
> TSO-C88 respectively. So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets
> the standards of the those TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the
> testing standards in FAR 43 they will meet the TSO's. The electronic
> standards of today's world meet or exceed the TSO requirements of yesterdays
> world. Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they designed and
> built their units. I had the chance to speak with the folks from Dynon at
> length several years ago when then D10 first came out, as I was concerned
> about this very issue.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: wgill10(at)comcast.net
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> IFR?
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:19:29 +0000
>
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is
> not TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the
> testing requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that
> the encoder must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
>
> Bill
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Mike Robertson < mrobert569(at)hotmail.com>
> Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even
> for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the
> Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to
> be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91,
> which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown to
> meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
> installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention
> TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do
> not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what
> has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the
> Operating Limitations bring them into play.
>
> I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older
> established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look
> throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments
> must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the
> requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO
> standard during testing, and to the ELT.
>
> Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight
> Standards that I have fought, and proven.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
> P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed
> in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> > From: kellym(at)aviating.com
> > To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> IFR?
> >
> >
> >
> > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
wdleonard(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 3:24 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
Greg,
No one can certify your plane for IFR. It doesn't quiet work like that.
The 2-year test everyone is taking about here comes in 2 versions. A VFR Transponder test, and an IFR Static-Transponder test. It is often called the Pitot-Static test because most shops test the pitot system as well, but surprisingly there are no performance requirements for the pitot system. So the test is of the SYSTEM. It includes the static lines, encoder, altimiter, and transponder. There is no requirement for TSO except for the transponder. If it passes, it is acceptable to use in IFR flight (if not altered) for 2 years.
This does not mean that you AIRCRAFT is certified for IFR flight. Those requirements depend somewhat on what FAR part you fly under, but it would mean you also have navigation equipment appropriate for the approach being flown, an AI, a DG, T&B, all VFR required insturments, and 2-way radio communication. (and maybe some things I forgot). Those instruments do not need to be "certified" for IFR, though they should perform up to the standards of instruments that are TSO'd.
Even with all that, it does not mean that it is necessarily a good idea to proceed into IMC.
Ask yourself the following questions. Would I bet my life that my altimeter will not develop excessive error or stop functioning? Could I proceed in IMC with the complete loss of any one of my instruments or SYSTEMS? Does the type of flying I intend present excessive challenges in terms of pilot workload? (most RV-s will not remain upright with the hands off the stick and there is not a lot of room in an RV for charts etc..) i.e. an RV is a more challenging IFR platform than most spam cans (yet still very doable when approached right).
Thats what is really cool about experimental - it is up to you to decided some of the big questions.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
On Nov 13, 2007 3:40 PM, Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com ([email]mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:
Quote: | So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each instrument?
On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com (pbesing(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:
Quote: | Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental" some places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key, and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was very impressed Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too, which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com (wdleonard(at)gmail.com)>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com (rv-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to pass the static-system test.
I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for performing the static system test.
Dave Leonard
On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot(at)aol.com (darnpilot(at)aol.com)> wrote:
Quote: | Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
|
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
|
|
[quote][b]
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mrobert569(at)hotmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:25 am Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
I agree with Dave on this one. Again, the units to have to be TSO'd but they must be shown to MEET the various standards of the TSO depending on if you want enroute, terminal, or approach capability.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
[quote] Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 14:52:28 -0800
From: wdleonard(at)gmail.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Now there is one that won't work. The GPS must meet the standards of the TSO. Those standards include RAIM and other specifics in the presentation of the the data the Bluemountain does not have. If Greg would just add RAIM, then we might be able to use that GPS as a substitute for DME on approaches, but right now you cant use it other than situational awareness.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
On Nov 14, 2007 1:53 PM, Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com ([email]mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:
[quote]So how about the GPS moving map (Blue Mtn EFIS one) being used for a GPS approach? It isn't TSO'd. Would I use the same arguement? If I have the altimeter, pitot/static system & transponder & encoder inspected can I do approaches using features in my EFIS/one?
Greg
On Nov 14, 2007 12:30 PM, Mike Robertson <mrobert569(at)hotmail.com (mrobert569(at)hotmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]
If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements of FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 respectively. So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the standards of the those TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the testing standards in FAR 43 they will meet the TSO's. The electronic standards of today's world meet or exceed the TSO requirements of yesterdays world. Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they designed and built their units. I had the chance to speak with the folks from Dynon at length several years ago when then D10 first came out, as I was concerned about this very issue.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
From: wgill10(at)comcast.net (wgill10(at)comcast.net)
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com (rv-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: RE: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:19:29 +0000
[quote]
Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
[quote]-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mike Robertson < mrobert569(at)hotmail.com (mrobert569(at)hotmail.com)>
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
[quote] Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
From: kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com (rv-list(at)matronics.com)
Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
--> RV-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
No mention of TSO at all.
If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
mention of TSO.
In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
darnpilot(at)aol.com (darnpilot(at)aol.com) wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> the FAA and their own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> they are wrong.
>
> My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> avionics shop for this simple requirement.
>
> I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> --
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
johnd(at)wlcwyo.com Guest
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 7:55 am Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
A Technical Standard Order (TSO) is a minimum performance standard issued by the United States Federal Aviation Administration for specified materials, parts, processes, and appliances used on civil aircraft. Articles with TSO design approval are eligible for use on the United States type certificated products. The TSO authorization or a letter of TSO Design Approval does not necessarily convey approval for installation.
John D
RV-6 built
Harmon - building
--
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
bmeyette(at)gmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went around & around & around on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of altimeter & I didn’t bring it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO encoder. Story starts here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm
I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs say it’s not required
Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc as their only avionics. It really comes down to what the local shop understands, and if they don’t know or understand Experimentals, then they fall back on what they do know.
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Robertson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look through the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> From: kellym(at)aviating.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
>
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > --
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mrobert569(at)hotmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
I am sorry to hear this. I have gone around and around with different offices on this issue. While it may be a bit late now, I would suggest you call them on the rug for their stand, and make them show you where TSO's equipment is required BY REGULATION. If they won't comply then I beg you to use a program within the FAA called the customer initiative program. That means you can contact the next higher level of management. The FSDO MUST give you that phone number. If they dont' then they can get in much bigger trouble than just not answering your TSO question.
FOR ALL.......The Customer Initiative Program is for everyone who does not get an answer they like, or doesn't get good service. The only thing is that you MUST start at the lowest level (i.e. FSDO), then work your way up the ladder to regional HQ, then to national. Each level MUST give you the phone number for the next higher contact if asked.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
From: bmeyette(at)gmail.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:46:56 -0500
.ExternalClass .EC_shape {;} .ExternalClass EC_p.MsoNormal, .ExternalClass EC_li.MsoNormal, .ExternalClass EC_div.MsoNormal {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass a:link, .ExternalClass EC_span.MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass a:visited, .ExternalClass EC_span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;} .ExternalClass p {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:'Times New Roman';} .ExternalClass pre {margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;font-family:'Courier New';} .ExternalClass EC_span.EmailStyle19 {font-family:Arial;color:navy;} (at)page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in;} .ExternalClass EC_div.Section1 {page:Section1;} [quote]
It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went around & around & around on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of altimeter & I didn’t bring it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO encoder. Story starts here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm
I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs say it’s not required
Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc as their only avionics. It really comes down to what the local shop understands, and if they don’t know or understand Experimentals, then they fall back on what they do know.
From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Robertson
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look through the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
[quote] Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
From: kellym(at)aviating.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
--> RV-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
No mention of TSO at all.
If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
mention of TSO.
In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> the FAA and their own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> they are wrong.
>
> My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> avionics shop for this simple requirement.
>
> I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
>
> Jeff
>
>
> --
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
aerobubba(at)earthlink.ne Guest
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
Hi All-
Mike: I've not heard of this customer initiative within the FAA before. This is great news, and word really needs to be spread. Like any other aspect of life, there are actually some really great, knowledgable, effective folks in the FAA. Unfortunately, they are overshadowed by the uneducated bureaucratic turds that most of us have encountered at one time or another. Putting some accountability to the folks that hold us accountable would be wonderful. (my personal favorite was a fed at the great lakes regional office telling me that in order to make skydives from the 20's each jumper would have to wear an encoding altimeter.... sheesh!)
All: Where I currently live, we seem to have some pretty good feds. When I was trying to understand the legal requirements of my homebuilt panel as well as what I could expect from the local FSDO, I had them point out to me that Piper Aircraft (at least at one time) used non-tso instruments. They then showed that the airplane as a whole met all the required performance parameters. The only thing actually req'd to carry a TSO was any GPS to be used for terminal ops (aproaches).
On a tangent, I have personally had issues with registering my plane. I called EAA, they called the dept head in OKC, and the next day my problem was gone.
The bottom line seems to me to be that we have some formidable tools at our disposal. Resources like Mike, this list, and the EAA national HQ can really make good things happen. All we have to do is take the time to get educated and then actually go through the required steps.
Glen Matejcek
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail. Guest
|
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
David,
Thanks for the reply. As you can tell, I'm not a high time pilot like some lucky folks. I'm just halfway thru my IFR ground school and all I really wanted to do was to get home to our airport after a long VFR flight or to get out early in a kind of foggy day where it is VFR elsewhere. I've got the Blue Mtn EFIS one and a Dynon D10A for "backup", two alternators and a backup battery. The nav-com is TSO'd as is the encoding transponder. My airport has a ILS which works great on my panel. But the missed approach includes a hold at a NDB. Although the EFIS shows the NDB, I don't have a separate ADF radio and kind of short of panel space to put something else in. I agree that I would be very busy if I had to do "real IFR" in a unknown location but all I want to do is to get home to my well known airport.
I'll keep working on my IFR and hope some possibility comes up.
Thanks again,
Greg
On Nov 14, 2007 3:23 PM, David Leonard < wdleonard(at)gmail.com (wdleonard(at)gmail.com)> wrote:
[quote]Greg,
No one can certify your plane for IFR. It doesn't quiet work like that.
The 2-year test everyone is taking about here comes in 2 versions. A VFR Transponder test, and an IFR Static-Transponder test. It is often called the Pitot-Static test because most shops test the pitot system as well, but surprisingly there are no performance requirements for the pitot system. So the test is of the SYSTEM. It includes the static lines, encoder, altimiter, and transponder. There is no requirement for TSO except for the transponder. If it passes, it is acceptable to use in IFR flight (if not altered) for 2 years.
This does not mean that you AIRCRAFT is certified for IFR flight. Those requirements depend somewhat on what FAR part you fly under, but it would mean you also have navigation equipment appropriate for the approach being flown, an AI, a DG, T&B, all VFR required insturments, and 2-way radio communication. (and maybe some things I forgot). Those instruments do not need to be "certified" for IFR, though they should perform up to the standards of instruments that are TSO'd.
Even with all that, it does not mean that it is necessarily a good idea to proceed into IMC.
Ask yourself the following questions. Would I bet my life that my altimeter will not develop excessive error or stop functioning? Could I proceed in IMC with the complete loss of any one of my instruments or SYSTEMS? Does the type of flying I intend present excessive challenges in terms of pilot workload? (most RV-s will not remain upright with the hands off the stick and there is not a lot of room in an RV for charts etc..) i.e. an RV is a more challenging IFR platform than most spam cans (yet still very doable when approached right).
Thats what is really cool about experimental - it is up to you to decided some of the big questions.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
On Nov 13, 2007 3:40 PM, Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com ([email]mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com[/email])> wrote:
Quote: | So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each instrument?
On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing(at)yahoo.com (pbesing(at)yahoo.com)> wrote:
Quote: | Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental" some places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key, and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was very impressed Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too, which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
Paul Besing
----- Original Message ----
From: David Leonard <wdleonard(at)gmail.com (wdleonard(at)gmail.com)>
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com (rv-list(at)matronics.com)
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to pass the static-system test.
I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for performing the static system test.
Dave Leonard
On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot(at)aol.com (darnpilot(at)aol.com)> wrote:
Quote: | Help.
My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e., pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and will not do the test and certification.
Thank you in advance.
Jeff
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
|
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
|
|
[b]
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
shempdowling2(at)earthlin Guest
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 8:22 am Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
There are many people who will provide this service. Fly to them and
have it done. You have a fast airplane.
do not archive.
shemp
6a 300+
chicago
Brian Meyette wrote:
[quote]
It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went around & around &
around on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of altimeter & I
didn’t bring it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO encoder.
Story starts here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm
I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs
say it’s not required
Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc as their only
avionics. It really comes down to what the local shop understands,
and if they don’t know or understand Experimentals, then they fall
back on what they do know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Robertson
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM
*To:* rv-list(at)matronics.com
*Subject:* RE: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
for IFR?
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even
for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true
then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster
would have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not
TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that
the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing,
the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR
Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for
instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to
Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what has to
be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the
Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older
established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to
look through the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight
instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could
only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter and
transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight
Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed
in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> From: kellym(at)aviating.com
> To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
IFR?
>
>
>
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot(at)aol.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > --
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail. Guest
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:49 am Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
Any recommendations for an experimental friendly avionics shop in the northwest?
On Nov 18, 2007 8:20 AM, Jeff Dowling <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net (shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:
[quote]--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Dowling < shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net (shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net)>
There are many people who will provide this service. Fly to them and
have it done. You have a fast airplane.
do not archive.
shemp
6a 300+
chicago
Brian Meyette wrote:
Quote: |
It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went around & around &
around on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of altimeter & I
didn't bring it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO encoder.
Story starts here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm
I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs
say it's not required
Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc as their only
avionics. It really comes down to what the local shop understands,
and if they don't know or understand Experimentals, then they fall
back on what they do know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com)
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com)] *On Behalf Of *Mike Robertson
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM
|
Quote: | for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true
then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster
would have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not
TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that
the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing,
the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR
Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for
instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to
Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what has to
be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the
Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older
established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to
look through the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight
instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could
only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter and
transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight
Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed
in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
|
Quote: | > Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
IFR?
>
|
[quote] > --> RV-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
>
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot(at)aol.com (darnpilot(at)aol.com) wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > --
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mrobert569(at)hotmail.com Guest
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 9:43 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
Pacific Coast Avioincs at Aurora Airport just south of Portland, and Greg Howard at Aero Maintenance at Pearson Field in Vancouver, WA are two good shops that I know of. I know there are also some around the Seattle area but I don't know the names.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
[quote] Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:45:53 -0800
From: mr.gsun+rv-list(at)gmail.com
To: rv-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Any recommendations for an experimental friendly avionics shop in the northwest?
On Nov 18, 2007 8:20 AM, Jeff Dowling <shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net (shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net)> wrote:
[quote]--> RV-List message posted by: Jeff Dowling < shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net (shempdowling2(at)earthlink.net)>
There are many people who will provide this service. Fly to them and
have it done. You have a fast airplane.
do not archive.
shemp
6a 300+
chicago
Brian Meyette wrote:
Quote: |
It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went around & around &
around on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of altimeter & I
didn't bring it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO encoder.
Story starts here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm
I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs
say it's not required
Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc as their only
avionics. It really comes down to what the local shop understands,
and if they don't know or understand Experimentals, then they fall
back on what they do know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com)
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com)] *On Behalf Of *Mike Robertson
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM
|
Quote: | for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true
> then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster
|
Quote: | would have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not
TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that
the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing,
the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR
Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for
instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to
Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what has to
be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the
Operating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older
established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to
look through the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight
instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could
only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter and
transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight
Standards that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed
in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
|
> > Subject: Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> > --> RV-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com (kellym(at)aviating.com)>
[quote] >
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot(at)aol.com (darnpilot(at)aol.com) wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > --
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
rv7a(at)prosody.org Guest
|
Posted: Sun Nov 18, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
|
|
at AWO
http://cannonavionics.com/experimentals.html (360-435-0900)
at BFI
https://www.americanavionics.com/ (800-518-5858)
Joe E (at) BFI
N633Z 496 hours
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Greg Williams wrote:
Quote: | Any recommendations for an experimental friendly avionics shop in the
northwest?
|
| - The Matronics RV-List Email Forum - | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List |
|
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|