The International Cessna^® 170 Association

What are the rules for our aircraft regarding installing TSO/non-TSO equipment. Specifically, instrumentation, I would love to install that new Dynon EFIS D10A in my airplane. I asked the Dynon people at Oshkosh if there were any plans to TSO the unit and they indicated no and it would probably tripple the price. Other venders said airplanes of our vintage didn't require TSO'd equipment. Whats the straight scoop and can anyone give some FAA reference for guidance.

I think there is some confusion of acronyms here and what they mean.

TSO = Technical Standard Order. It is a specification of some sort by which different manufacturers would make the same type equipment. Meeting the TSO would guarantee the same performance of the product regardless of the manufacturer.

Because equipment meets a TSO does not mean you can install it in your aircraft without some other basis of approval such as the TCDS (Type Certificate Data Sheet) or an STC (Supplemental Type Certification) or of course an approval on a form 337 Major Alteration or Repair.

right-o, all a TSO certification does is give a certified maintenance professional (A&P, IA, repair station) more ammo with the federales to get the installation approved

any installation of new equipment in a certified aircraft has to be signed off by either an A&P (337 Major Repair or Alteration form) and then approved by an IA using a field approval from the FSDO, or by a CRS (Certified Repair Station) which most often has to get the FSDO's blessing too.

which is why when I moved to the big city I removed the (decidedly non-TSO) CB radio from my aerochine that my brother-in-law had installed. I don't do much coyote hunting around here anyway...

which is why when I moved to the big city I removed the (decidedly non-TSO) CB radio from my aerochine that my brother-in-law had installed. I don't do much coyote hunting around here anyway...[/quote]

Ummm,
Which makes me think, Is a pice of equiptment that isn't used for navigation, or any other flight arrangment, actualy illegal if it is logged, and the weight and balance, along with the equiptment list, updated to show the part on the A/C? , I haven't taken the time to look up the reg's, But I'm thinking Bull horns on potrol planes, (George your perspective Please) I'm thinking they Shouldn't be any diffrent than a CB!!! Discounting FCC reg's, thats another bag of worms.
brad

Brad it it is permanently installed it must be approved. That goes for bull horns or CBs. How would you know if your bull Hom or CB might interfere with you navigation equipment.

Around here most all the part 135 operators have marine radios installed so they can talk to the fishing boats. A major part of their busines is hauling fishermen and parts to and from the fishing grounds. Why do they call water, "grounds"????

In a very brief "nutshell"... Non TSO'd equipment may be installed in airplanes provided that the installation is in conformity with FAR 43 and the installation and equipment does not interfere with any other installed equipment.
TSO's are Technical Standard Orders that specify the equipment's characteristics meet certain design specifications for the purpose, and that the equipment (if installed according to it's mfr's instructions and the FAR's) will not interfere or adversely affect other equipment. Another aspect of TSO'd equipment is how/by-whom it may be repaired. A non TSO'd radio might be repaired with common off-the-shelf components from the local electronics supplier. But a TSO'd unit must be repaired using the exact components supplied/approved by the mfr'r and by a repairman authorized by that mfr using mfr'rs techniques and manuals. (You might have your non-TSO'd Icom 200 radio repaired by your local avionics shop or ham radio buddy using Radio Shack transistors,... but the TSO'd unit's transistors meet a more stringent requirement and Radio Shack's may not be tested so as to guarantee they meet the same performance requirements...therefore the TSO'd radio must be repaired using TSO-specified part numbers installed by authorized/approved repair facilities using factory/TSO-specified repair techniques.)
There is nothing inherently wrong with a CB or other automotive radio equipment installed in airplanes. But you should realize that the FAA may not be satisfied that your auto-stereo or CB is OK for aircraft use unless you can prove it will not interject signals into the audio system that back-feed into your VOR reciever and cause it to misbehave on an IFR appoach. Or that the wires used to construct that radio meet the requirements of electronic installations in aircraft. (Common PVC insulation found on most automotive wiring is not approved for aircraft use due to the fact that it emits poisonous gas when it burns. An automotive radio most likely was not mfr'd using aircraft-quality components. Non-TSO'd radios may be constructed with substandard/lower-grade parts, even tho' that radio may perform the same function as a TSO'd unit.)
A CB made by Radio Shack was not likely tested to determine it's effect on other aircraft radios in an aircraft environment. (But a CB that is TSO'd will have been so tested and therefore would be eligible for aircraft installation without further testing or documentation.) The person installing the non-TSO'd CB would have to determine if the installation had adverse effects on other equipment, and would have to correct those adverse effects before the installation met the rule (and met the requirements of FAR 43, therefore the installation being elegible for approval.) (Just because an IA filled out a Form 337 describing an installation does not mean he knew what he was doing, or that the installation was legal in every way. It's possible the installation is illegal as heck, but he IA simply didn't know any better. A Form 337 might describe that installation in glowing terms, and document the wt and bal change, and so forth and so on. The FAA does not usually scrutinize each and every Form 337 for every possible error that may be made. A lot of credit is given the IA by the FAA in the belief that most IA's know what they are doing and would not deliberately do something illegal and bother to fill out a Form 337 and send the feds a copy telling them about it.)
In other words, a TSO removes the need for additional, expensive/complicated testing to determine if the unit is actually suitable for aircraft use.
Hope this helps.

Bruce,
You and I are on the same page on this topic!!! I mentioned the bull horn, (PA system) because I knew that George had intiment knowlage of this, (and I removed a PA system because I thought it illegal) from a 1960 PA-18 that was used for petroal patrole several years ago. But the thread joged my mind and I wondered was I just annal? Or on the right tract. It seams I'm somewhere in the middle! And this just confounds me more!!! Roesbery mentiones marine raidos (that's something I never thought about) Being from the midwest. But thankfully George has brought it more into perspective (that's why he gits the big bucks )
brad

In the early '80s I flew a L-19 for the undercover guys at the Riverside County Sheriff's dept. The Birddog had a load of (non TSO'ed) police radios as well as an externally mounted bullhorn and spotlight. Because it was owned and operated by a gov't. entity it did not need to comply with the FAR's. Apparently one doesn't even need to have a pilot's license to fly a gov't. aircraft. Any truth to that?

That depends on how you look at it. Military pilots do not get an FAA license unless they go the extra mile and take the test for one. Most do not do this. However, the training they recieve far exceeds the requirements for a private pilots license.

If you are flying a government owned aircraft for a government agency under certain conditions neither you or the aircraft need to be licensed.

This usually involves military aircraft both current and ex-military bought by other agencies of the government like police departments.

N9149A wrote:
This usually involves military aircraft both current and ex-military bought by other agencies of the government like police departments.

Bruce,
Then there is people like iowa, that wants to buy a L-4. And he wants a mechanic like me to work on his aircraft. Where do you draw the line on what is "OK" to use on an X-milatery aircraft. It seems to me I need to go back to the TC sheets and bring his aircraft up to date with the data that is isued with the current TCDS that is put out the feds. Otherwise Iowa and I are in miscomplyance! My view seems a little strong!!!! but guidence would be appreacitated!!
brad

I’m dating myself a little but………..oh well. I graduated from USAF navigator training in 1966, had a tour in SEA 66-67 and then finally got to USAF pilot school in 1970. At that time, if a USAF pilot wanted a civilian rating he, (we didn’t have any women in those days), would have to contact the FAA and take the written exam for whatever rating he was pursuing. The Feds. accepted the Air Force’s practical tests since they were in comparatively high performance aircraft.

Buck Buchanan, Galena, AK

bradbrady wrote:

N9149A wrote:
This usually involves military aircraft both current and ex-military bought by other agencies of the government like police departments.

Bruce,
Then there is people like iowa, that wants to buy a L-4. And he wants a mechanic like me to work on his aircraft. Where do you draw the line on what is "OK" to use on an X-military aircraft. It seems to me I need to go back to the TC sheets and bring his aircraft up to date with the data that is issued with the current TCDS that is put out the feds. Otherwise Iowa and I are in miscomplyance! My view seems a little strong!!!! but guidence would be appreacitated!!
brad

Brad

All L-4s where included on the J3 type certificate and are eligible for a standard category airworthiness certificate like any other J3. This is probably the case with many of the older aircraft like the L2, L5, L-19 but I'm not familiar with each case.

Many of the newer military aircraft are not included on the type certificate for their civilian counter parts and therefor are never eligible for a standard airworthiness certificate.

I'm most familiar with helicopters specifically the Bell UH-1H or it's civilian counter part the 204 and 205 and the Bell OH-58 and it's civilian counterpart the 206 Jet Ranger. These helicopters where at one time very popular aircraft in the civilian world. They actually still are but there are many more newer helicopters on the market making these much less desirable and more expensive from a maintenance stand point as they get older. But I degrees.

The military didn't by certified helicopters in from the 60's on. These helicopters don't use certified parts. You can not get an standard airworthiness certificate for them. You can't even use the military parts on civilian models because there is no paper trail.

Many of these helicopters where sold from the military to civilian government agency's for $1. It wasn't uncommon for a civilian agency like your local police force to buy 10 aircraft, fly 2 and use the others for parts to support it. It is these helicopters and other aircraft like them that I'm talking about not needing an airworthiness certificate nor does the pilot need a license.

So bottom line the older military aircraft where included on a TC. Probably by now they have received a standard airworthiness certificate. If you find a rare one that has not you can perform a compliance inspection and get one. Newer stuff was not certified and your out of luck unless you want an experimental certificate. You will probably get one for exhibition only. In any case there will be operating restrictions. It's all in the FARs.

Here's a question for YOU George,

I just got done engineering and building a gyro-stabilized gimbal mount for a movie camera that I plan on using on a Robinson -44 helicopter. It sets on the rear seat box (with the seat cushion flipped forward on its hinge). It incorporates four latches that catch under the lip of the seat box but its primary security is provided by the seat belt passing through loop provisions in the mount. The entire mount w/ gyros, camera equipment, etc., weighs less than 120 lbs. in its heaviest configuration.

What are the rules that apply to this and where can I find them? Since no modifications are done to the aircraft, does it fall under "Carry On"? Does having latches that catch the seat box lip mean that it attaches? I've heard the term "easily removable between flights" used for carrying non-approved "appliances". Where do I stand? If it was a mount for a boat, I could just throw it in the back seat and legally transport it where ever I wanted to.

I could PM you some pics if it would help. Thanks George or whoever else can weigh in on this.

Joe Moilanen
moilanen@scattercreek.com
http://www.moitek-infrared.com