non TSO'd instruments (moved from Member Issues)

[n3437d]

OK - goin gto stick my head out and ask this question

There are some very neat and excellent and reasonably priced instruments on the market for Experimental aircraft - other than posssible (probable) insurance issues, what are the negatives of installing a non-certified instrument such as the LifeSaver back up Gyro? or a TruTrack auto pilot?

Joel
N3437D

[Brad Brady]

OK - goin gto stick my head out and ask this question

There are some very neat and excellent and reasonably priced instruments on the market for Experimental aircraft - other than posssible (probable) insurance issues, what are the negatives of installing a non-certified instrument such as the LifeSaver back up Gyro? or a TruTrack auto pilot?

Joel
N3437D

Joel,
Simply put legality.....The parts ain't certified for the aircraft....Brad

[n3437d]

I guess nothing is a problem until its a problem - crying in my beer - I would like to replace my one axis Century I but anything close costs $10k or much more

I can get a TruTrak 2 axis auto pilot for way under that but I can't put the darn thing in the plane -

Please be kind and don't ask me why I need to have an auto pilot in a 170 - I already know that answer -

It all started out so simple - My Century I stopped working so I removed the Servo and sent it to Edo-Aire - It checked out OK and cost $500 for that answer - they did clean out some 15 year old gunk so I guess it was worth it - Auto Pilot still does not work - so removed Gyro and sent to a licensed repair station - just got word "it checks out OK. Tested the garmin that is is slaved to and it is sending out a signal - all wiring checks out OK - continuity on all ends --

I am hoping that when ALL goes together the system will go back on line - if not I need to buy another "gizmo" to stick in the empty hole - I hate empty holes!!

Joel
N3437D

[blueldr]

So, if you install a non TSOd unit, what are the consequences? Can they be any more severe than storing a pair of roller skates in your hangar?

Keep in mind that the new FAA "Rules" say that if you're on an airport receiving FAA money, you may not keep anything non aeronautical in your hangar such as a bicyle to ride to the potty, a coffee pot for sustenance while working on your airplane, an old couch to lay down on for that afternoon nap, nor may you bring onto the aiport the homebuilt airplane you built with folding wings so that you could store it at home. You are not allowed to tow it onto the airport, however if you can find some other place to assemble it and take off, they apparently have no problem in your flying it onto the airport to buy av gas since mogas is no longer authorized even with an StC.

The F---ers have gonecompletely crazy! It is probably going to be a felony to have a microwave oven in your hangar.

There is an article covering these new "rules" in the current issue of "The Pacific Flyer".

It's obvious as hell that the FAA is no longer tasked with "Promoting" aviation. The "milk" on the Air Carrier teat must be much richer.

[canav8]

There is not really a problem if you can get a field approval for the equipment. I have been very successful in the past getting stuff past the FAA. I would suggest tht if the equipment you wish to add increases safety it will be a green light with the FAA. If it is marginal, plan on high resistance. I have been very successful since just about anything I have added to my 170 at this point has been far better then production. I wouldnt go as far as putting a G-1000 in the aircraft but updating Nav equipment for example a GPS because the FAA is going to phase out VOR's in 2010. At least that is their dream. It leaves the door wide open. Good luck and be persistant is the best advice I can offer. Doug

[cessna170bdriver]

This topic is one of the reasons I'm doing this:

Right_Inboard_Tank_On_Wing.jpg

I'll need an engine someday, and the spare C-145 I have won't cut it. Anybody wanna buy a good fairly low time 170?

[Blue4]

That looks JUST like my RV-8 project!

[cessna170bdriver]

Airplanes are unique in that the people who own and work with them were trained to believe that there's something magic about aviation that's beyond the capacity of the mortal pilot or mechanic to understand. We've bought into that idea for years. Our brothers in the consumer marketplace have enjoyed a rapidly expanding world of technology, tools and personal skills. Many who choose to work on airplanes and fly for pleasure are stuck in regulatory mud and fog that completely obscures technological advances made over the past 30 years.

© 1996, 1997, 1998 Bob Nuckolls, Wichita, Kansas

[GAHorn]

...The F---ers have gonecompletely crazy! It is probably going to be a felony to have a microwave oven in your hangar.....

Isn't that what we call "Radar"???

http://www.gallawa.com/microtech/history.html

[minton]

I would refer to the FAR's glossary of terms and Advisory Circulars, Primarily "PMA", "TSO", "Certified", "Equipement list", "Field approval", "STC", "Overhaul", "Minor modification", "Major modification"-- etc, etc. These terms are used and mis-used to the point of confusion and could cause someone to install something that is in some way NOT authorized in a CAR-3 (C-170) certified aircraft without further review from your A&P or PMI.

[GAHorn]

True. True.

TSO is particlularly misunderstood. A TSO is a minimum performance standard for specified materials, parts, and appliances used on civil aircraft. When authorized to manufacture a material, part, or appliances to a TSO standard, this is referred to as TSO authorization. Receiving a TSO authorization is both design and production approval.

Receiving a TSO Authorization is not an approval to install and use the article in the aircraft. It means that the article meets the specific TSO and the applicant is authorized to manufacture it
In layman terms, If the equipment is "TSO'd"...then the mfr is basically guaranteeing it meets the standards described in the TSO document, and the inspection of that item to determine that was performed by the mfr'r...not FAA.

It is not necessary for all aircraft items to meet any TSO in order to be installed. Installation of equipment is a different matter. Not all equipment must be approved for installation. (But this is also a different animal than the requirement that any particular installation of equipment to be approved.)

An example of this was the recent discussion regarding shoulder harnesses. You can install TSO'd harnesses. Or you can install non-TSO'd harnesses in aircraft that do not otherwise require shoulder harnesses. If you install harnesses, you may install them according to any method you like ...but the method must be an approved one. If you install non-TSO'd harnesses then that may be done under a minor alteration method. If you install TSO'd harnesses, you may install them just like the non-TSO'd harnesses...but the installation may not meet the same safety levels intended by the TSO. If you want to meet the same safety levels then you'll have to install them according to an installation method or STC which guarantees that.

Regarding this threads original question: There is nothing "wrong" with installing a backup gyro that is not required equipment. Go for it. But install it according to approved methods and have it added to your wt/bal and signed off by the installer. (But since it's not approved equipment for standard airworthiness airplanes, it may not be used in lieu of an approved gyro for any flight that requires such a gyro.) Will it add safety to your airplane? Probably. Can you use it in an emergency such as when IFR and your regular horizon dies? Of course, but only so far as you need to meet the emergency. Can you launch another IFR flight without repairing the approved gyro? No.

Can you install a non-TSO'd autopilot? That's a little different because the installation will alter your primary flight controls. That alteration will need to be approved, and I know no one who will do that without tons of money for certification, which is why the AP mfr'f didn't bother to do so.

[Brad Brady]

There is not really a problem if you can get a field approval for the equipment. I have been very successful in the past getting stuff past the FAA. I would suggest tht if the equipment you wish to add increases safety it will be a green light with the FAA. If it is marginal, plan on high resistance. I have been very successful since just about anything I have added to my 170 at this point has been far better then production. I wouldnt go as far as putting a G-1000 in the aircraft but updating Nav equipment for example a GPS because the FAA is going to phase out VOR's in 2010. At least that is their dream. It leaves the door wide open. Good luck and be persistant is the best advice I can offer. Doug

Doug,
I agree, It's just everyone has to dance the dance. You can not install a non certified piece of equipment, without going through the hoops.....Which you apparently, have done so well......Brad

[n2582d]

This topic is one of the reasons I'm doing this:

Right_Inboard_Tank_On_Wing.jpg

I'll need an engine someday, and the spare C-145 I have won't cut it. Anybody wanna buy a good fairly low time 170?

Not to change the subject but what is it Miles? An RV of some model I guess. Does the wing have twist built in from the root to the tip? Details please.