 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
 |
|
1/8/2007
Hello Old Bob, You wrote: "I am definitely stepping out from my area of
expertise here, but is a TSO required for operations of a home built
aircraft?"
I believe that a narrow legalistic response to your question is "No, because
there are no published certification standards that ABEA's (Amateur Built
Experimental Aircraft) are required to meet."
But in a real world practical sense there are some operations that ABEA's
participate in that require them to interface with other aircraft or
facilities and those operations require compatibility with published
standards established for those other entities.
Compatibility could conceivably be achieved by individually creating
equipment equivalent to a published standard, but the practicality of such
creation is, in most cases, very remote.**
In the postings copied below the operation at issue is GPS requirements for
IFR operations. Here is just one extract (others may be found) from chapter
1-1-19 in the current edition of the AIM:
"g. Equipment and Database Requirements
1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems
requires that:
(a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in
class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and"
I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe that an
ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being called to
account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or improper
performance on his part would have a very difficult time convincing the
authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be entirely acceptable
to them.
So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his
aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger him or
others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that goal then his
choice should be clear to him.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
**PS: One notable exception is in the arena of external lighting where some
innovative LED equipment may, in fact, be superior to the TSO requirements.
But proving that superiority and getting an initial airworthiness inspector
of an ABEA to accept the equipment (if he chooses to make it an issue) may
be a problem.
----------------------- COPIED POSTINGS FOLLOW -----------------
Time: 06:53:45 AM PST US
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Good Morning Kevin,
I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is a TSO
required for operations of a home built aircraft?
It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft.
The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight appears
to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator determines that the
equipment meets the standards required for IFR flight, the stuff should be
acceptable.
What do you feel is required?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
TSOs have been issued.
Kevin Horton
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 10:53 am Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
|
|
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
| Quote: |
I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe
that an ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being
called to account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or
improper performance on his part would have a very difficult time
convincing the authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be
entirely acceptable to them.
|
Could you please stand back while I prepare to insert my foot in my
mouth, but...
That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial. That just quacks to
much like "ex post facto" law to not be "ex post facto" law. If the
non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in
the wind.
| Quote: | So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his
aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger
him or others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that
goal then his choice should be clear to him.
|
If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
|
|
1/9/2007
Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no
law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a country!?
The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when consideration of fines
begin, it is immaterial."
This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we have
come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real soon.
We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have non
regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.) to help
interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those same
bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB judge
charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation because you
violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and certificate action
is not immaterial.
2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several
years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a TSOed
unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in the
wind."
The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a pilot
knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that the AIM
said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or violation
occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to punishment for such a
violation of the AIM. This is true.
3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the
price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing, why
wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?"
If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only be
performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking a risk.
His risk could result in:
a) No harm.
b) Embarrassment.
c) A fine.
d) Loss of certificate
e) Injury to self or others.
f) Death of self or others.
g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding community.
Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________
Time: 10:53:58 AM PST US
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
| Quote: | I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe
that an ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being
called to account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or
improper performance on his part would have a very difficult time
convincing the authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be
entirely acceptable to them.
|
Could you please stand back while I prepare to insert my foot in my
mouth, but...
That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial. That just quacks to
much like "ex post facto" law to not be "ex post facto" law. If the
non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in
the wind.
| Quote: | So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his
aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger
him or others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that
goal then his choice should be clear to him.
|
If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?
Ernest Christley
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
echristley(at)nc.rr.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
|
|
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
| Quote: |
1/9/2007
Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's
no law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial."
This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we
have come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real
soon.
We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have
non regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.)
to help interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those
same bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB
judge charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation
because you violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and
certificate action is not immaterial.
2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for
several years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke
in the wind."
The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a
pilot knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that
the AIM said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or
violation occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to
punishment for such a violation of the AIM. This is true.
|
I'm not a lawyer, but you say "punishment for such a violation of the
AIM". Earlier, you said that, "the AIM is not regulatory in nature."
How can you be punished for something that isn't a regulation?
(Aaaaah, shucks!! Now I'm gonna have to go off and study something
else... 'cause it won't leave me alone until I know.)
| Quote: |
3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half
the price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?"
If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only
be performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking
a risk. His risk could result in:
a) No harm.
b) Embarrassment.
c) A fine.
d) Loss of certificate
e) Injury to self or others.
f) Death of self or others.
g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding
community.
Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
|
I don't mean to disparage you, because you have presented yourself very
honorably in these many conversations, but this just sounds like
complete FUD. Dont' use that non-TSOed stuff...you'll die. There is a
way for the FAA to communicate their intentions...(F)ederal (A)viation
(R)egulations. There is a process for the FAA to get a FAR in place
that protects everyones rights. They can put anything they want into an
AIM, without Congressional oversight, or public review. I do not know
it for a fact, but I'll be dollars to donuts that no one has ever been
convicted for an "AIM violation". . . but I'll have to study up some to
be sure.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:05 pm Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
|
|
Ernst,
The AIM is like the Work Rules that Railroad Companies provide to their
employees. One important rule is when dismounting a moving train, the
employee musto ensure that he selects a safe, sound landing spot. Of
course, with rocks, weeds, ditches, ties and general debris, a safe,
sound landing spot is neigh impossible to find. Nonetheless, when
ankles are twisted or bones broken in this somewhat high risk but
necessary activity, the RR has the perfect proof that you broke the Work
Rule, because obviously, the landing spot you selected was not safe and
sound.
So it is with the AIM--a catch 22, gourdian knot, gotcha and the rest.
How can you possible be operating a plane in a safe prudent manner if
you are violating AIMs?
Chuck Jensen
Do Not Archive
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Denton
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 97
Location: Chicago, IL USA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 2:07 pm Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
|
|
I've seen this discussion before...
It's somewhat convoluted, but it's also quite simple.
"Careless and reckless" essentially means operating outside of what might be
described as "good practices".
The FARs prohibit "careless and reckless" operation.
The AIM describes "good practices".
So, operating outside the "good practices" described in the AIM can be
"careless and reckless" operation, which is a violation of the FAR's.
As a side note, not necessarily applicable to this particular post...
How often have we seen people spend a great deal of time and money
attempting to bypass a regulation that they could have easily complied with
for half the price?
--
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
|
|
On 8 Jan 2007, at 13:52, Ernest Christley wrote:
| Quote: |
<echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price,
only lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic
blessing, why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder
has done the pre-requisite homework, after all?
|
I've seen frequent software crashes, completely confusing operator
interfaces, display of misleading information, etc when doing TSO
testing. And this was always on equipment that the manufacturer was
convinced was ready for a TSO. This is all too common with
equipment from small companies that are making their first attempt to
produce equipment with a new capability. They simply lack the
experience to know how to do comprehensive testing in the new area.
There is a big difference between a piece of equipment that a company
claims meets TSO requirements, and a piece of equipment that actually
has a TSO.
Kevin Horton
Ottawa, Canada
| | - The Matronics AeroElectric-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?AeroElectric-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
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
