"Certified Radios"
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: -pretty much forces the TSO, since I can’t imagine anyone building a -transponder and proving it meets the requirements without actually -applying for the TSO. Actually, Rocky Mountain Instruments does EXACTLY that with their altitude encoder. The letter of the law says that it has to MEET the requirements, and not be actually TSOd. There are reasons for this, mostly having to do with mountains of paperwork not having to be shuffled.
Ok. I can see it with the encoder. It’s not that complicated and there ain’t much profit in them. After getting the TSO, the costs of configuration control, QA, certifying redesigns (usually parts related), etc. can put a lot of price pressure on what is probably the most price sensitive piece of avionics made. Five bucks can kill your market share. OTOH, I don’t expect to see a non-TSO’d transponder anytime soon. They’re a lot more expensive and the MOPS are tougher to meet. Spend the kind of money it takes to design and build a transponder, and the certification costs become a much smaller percentage. And since the cert will increase the size your potential market, you have a better chance of recouping your investment. Gerry
Response:
Coffee will kill ya, try OJ.
OJ will kill ya too. cheers -=K=-
Response:
Getting someone to sign the piece of paper is important, and anyone can do anything with the right paper. I have one of Jim’s RST portable intercoms modified and permanently mounted in my airplane and approved! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: -Most avionics are "approved" by being issued TSOs No, that’s not quite the case. For every TSO’d radio you can list, I can list five that are not. Jim, gimme a break. You’ll notice that I put approved in quotations, and even pointed that out in my post. The bottom line (as my post stated if you would read it) is that you are exactly right and there is no need to have TSO’d radios for Part 91 flight ops. Actually, as a legal requirement, TSO’s are always optional. It doesn’t matter whether the aircraft is Part 23 or 25, used in Part 91, 135 or 121. The only place outside of Part 21 that appears to imply a TSO is required is the lines in Parts 91, 121, and 135 that state something like "a transponder that meets the requirements of TSO C74c or TSO C112 and an encoding altimeter that meets the requirments of TSO C88." That pretty much forces the TSO, since I can’t imagine anyone building a transponder and proving it meets the requirements without actually applying for the TSO. But, the FARs do require that the installation be "approved." Approved is defined in Part 21. Installation approval is granted by a Type Certificate, STC, or Form 337 (Field Approval). (Experimentals have their own set of rules. You have a lot more latitude, but there is still paperwork.) As a practical matter tho, the FAA (as part of its war on unapproved parts) is pushing manufacturers to get TSO’s or get an STC/PMA if there isn’t a TSO for the equipment. The practical reason being that when someone submits a request for an installation approval, the TSO and/or STC unambiguously provide "data acceptable to the administrator." The IA or ACO likes to see it, because they don’t have to stick their neck out approving some unfamiliar piece of equipment. Somebody else in the FAA has already signed their name saying it’s acceptable. The bottom line–You can do almost anything if you can find someone to sign the right piece of paper. Gerry
– David B.Schober, CPE Instructor, Aviation Maintenance Fairmont State College National Aerospace Education Center 1050 East Benedum Industrial Drive Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503 (304) 842-8300 When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always be. –Leonardo da Vinci
Response:
No need for TSO’d radios in FAR 135 either. I had my Howard on a 135 certificate with a KX170B and a Mark 12, neither are TSO’d! The only approval required is someone willing to sign off on the installation. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Most avionics are "approved" by being issued TSOs (note the quotation marks). Keep in mind that TSO’d equipment is not required for flights conducted under Part 91. There is no reason that you can’t (unless you’re operating a charter) install that Microair right now. They are working on getting their TSOs, and will likely have it before "hell freezes shut." But that’s no reason to wait if you need a good radio.
Response:
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: That -pretty much forces the TSO, since I can’t imagine anyone building a -transponder and proving it meets the requirements without actually -applying for the TSO. Actually, Rocky Mountain Instruments does EXACTLY that with their altitude encoder. The letter of the law says that it has to MEET the requirements, and not be actually TSOd. There are reasons for this, mostly having to do with mountains of paperwork not having to be shuffled. Jim Jim Weir (A&P, CFI, and other good alphabet soup) VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
Response:
Most avionics are "approved" by being issued TSOs (note the quotation marks). Keep in mind that TSO’d equipment is not required for flights conducted under Part 91. There is no reason that you can’t (unless you’re operating a charter) install that Microair right now.
As I said in another post, Bendix-King sells a lot of avionics that are not TSOed. Does this mean that they are not APPROVED?
Response:
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: -Most avionics are "approved" by being issued TSOs No, that’s not quite the case. For every TSO’d radio you can list, I can list five that are not. Jim, gimme a break. You’ll notice that I put approved in quotations, and even pointed that out in my post. The bottom line (as my post stated if you would read it) is that you are exactly right and there is no need to have TSO’d radios for Part 91 flight ops.
The "King of Radios" (Allied Signal) offers you a choice, TSOed or not, the difference is the cost. I have the KT-76 transponder and the KN-64 DME which don’t have a TSO and they work better than the ones with the TSO. Before you ‘nit-pickers’ flame me, I know that there is a letter difference in the non-TSOed models and I may not have them exactly correct. The problem starts when you try to export an aircraft with non TSOed equipment, the foreigners won’t accept them.
Response:
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: -Most avionics are "approved" by being issued TSOs No, that’s not quite the case. For every TSO’d radio you can list, I can list five that are not.
Jim, gimme a break. You’ll notice that I put approved in quotations, and even pointed that out in my post. The bottom line (as my post stated if you would read it) is that you are exactly right and there is no need to have TSO’d radios for Part 91 flight ops. Geeez. Put away the coffee and the OJ. Have a beer! I am with you (hence the pearls of wisdom are indeed priceless). Bluto (enough alphabet soup to wallpaper a decent sized bathroom)
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: -Most avionics are "approved" by being issued TSOs No, that’s not quite the case. For every TSO’d radio you can list, I can list five that are not. Jim, gimme a break. You’ll notice that I put approved in quotations, and even pointed that out in my post. The bottom line (as my post stated if you would read it) is that you are exactly right and there is no need to have TSO’d radios for Part 91 flight ops.
Actually, as a legal requirement, TSO’s are always optional. It doesn’t matter whether the aircraft is Part 23 or 25, used in Part 91, 135 or 121. The only place outside of Part 21 that appears to imply a TSO is required is the lines in Parts 91, 121, and 135 that state something like "a transponder that meets the requirements of TSO C74c or TSO C112 and an encoding altimeter that meets the requirments of TSO C88." That pretty much forces the TSO, since I can’t imagine anyone building a transponder and proving it meets the requirements without actually applying for the TSO. But, the FARs do require that the installation be "approved." Approved is defined in Part 21. Installation approval is granted by a Type Certificate, STC, or Form 337 (Field Approval). (Experimentals have their own set of rules. You have a lot more latitude, but there is still paperwork.) As a practical matter tho, the FAA (as part of its war on unapproved parts) is pushing manufacturers to get TSO’s or get an STC/PMA if there isn’t a TSO for the equipment. The practical reason being that when someone submits a request for an installation approval, the TSO and/or STC unambiguously provide "data acceptable to the administrator." The IA or ACO likes to see it, because they don’t have to stick their neck out approving some unfamiliar piece of equipment. Somebody else in the FAA has already signed their name saying it’s acceptable. The bottom line–You can do almost anything if you can find someone to sign the right piece of paper. Gerry
Response:
A little less coffee for you!
Response:
Most avionics are "approved" by being issued TSOs (note the quotation marks). Keep in mind that TSO’d equipment is not required for flights conducted under Part 91. There is no reason that you can’t (unless you’re operating a charter) install that Microair right now. They are working on getting their TSOs, and will likely have it before "hell freezes shut." But that’s no reason to wait if you need a good radio.
Response:
A little less coffee for you!
Coffee will kill ya, try OJ. Dan, U. S. Air Farce, retired
Response:
A little less coffee for you! Coffee will kill ya, try OJ. Dan, U. S. Air Farce, retired
So does OJ! (Pun intended) David
Response:
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom: -Most avionics are "approved" by being issued TSOs No, that’s not quite the case. For every TSO’d radio you can list, I can list five that are not. Jim Jim Weir (A&P, CFI, and other good alphabet soup) VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
Response:
Published with the persimmon of the author… I enjoyed your article on the new Microair, however it is not yet approved for certified aircraft. Is there any news as to if or when we might be able to use it in certified aircraft? Sorry, I get a little pissy when questions like this are tossed about aimlessly. First of all, what is a "certified aircraft"? One that is sent by certified mail from one place to another? Or do you mean an aircraft that has an airworthiness certificate? And do you distinguish between an "experimental" and "standard" airworthiness certificate? And if so, why? What do you perceive as the difference in standards between the two? Radios aren’t "certified" for installation in aircraft, whether they be experimental or otherwise. Unfortunately, radios came along too late for the process that the FAA ported over from the old CAA regs. We have "approvals" for fabric, floats, skis, and everything that came out of the ’30s. We have no "approvals" for radios, intercoms, or any of the other marvels generated from about 1950 on. Oh, yes, we have SPECIFIC approvals for this 1990-on wunderkind stuff. IFR GPS has a specific spproval process, as does the obsolete LORAN process. You want an IFR LORAN, only cost you twenty grand or so for the process, and I’ll be glad to do it for you. The 1950s-60s-70s "radio" stuff seems to be lost in the shuffle. At any rate, somebody find me the "approval" for a Narco Superhomer installation in my 182. Find me the "approval" for a Terra or Genave radio installation in any airplane. It doesn’t exist. Yet we’ve put tens of thousands of them in with nothing more than a wink and a nod from the FAA that if you don’t bitch about it, and if we don’t have to go through the horrendous mess of approving everything from 1950 through today on, I ain’t gonna squawk if you don’t. You don’t want to put a Microair in your airplane because it isn’t "approved"? Please don’t. Because it is going to be until hell freezes shut before the FAA gets off it’s collective butt and makes reasonable rules for radio installations. On the other hand, you wanna put a Microair in your airplane and have me sign it off? No problem whatsoever. Strictly your choice. Jim Thanks for your great articles Jim Weir (A&P, CFI, and other good alphabet soup) VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
