---------------------------------------------------------- Avionics-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Mon 08/14/06: 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- Today's Message Index: ---------------------- 1. 11:56 AM - encoder approval () 2. 12:21 PM - encoder approval () 3. 01:43 PM - encoder approval () 4. 05:16 PM - Re: encoder approval (Michael Hinchcliff) ________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________ Time: 11:56:31 AM PST US From: Subject: Avionics-List: encoder approval --> Avionics-List message posted by: 8/14/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: cfi@conwaycorp.net Hello Michael H. Thanks for your input. 1) You wrote: "In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not be hasty about accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but not necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have unlimited resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles carefully." I agree. Maybe my choice of the word "proactive" was not the best. What I really expected of EAA was for them to acknowledge that a (potential) problem existed for their members and that the existence and proper interpretation of FAR 91.217 (b) could solve that problem. 2) You wrote: "This would give the Airline Pilots Association and other opponents to the AOPA/EAA ammunition to show that we are not capable of following the rules as published and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their eyes) and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards." I believe that complying with FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F places an encoder / transponder installation in compliance with the intent of FAR 91.217 (b). Please read those items carefully for yourself and tell us why you would think differently. 3) You wrote: "I believe the EAA is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since it is the current rule." The EAA did not even acknowledge the existence of 91.217 (b) on their website or in communicating with me. They took the position that only 91.217 (c) -- TSO'd encoders are required -- was relevant. 4) You wrote: "It would be foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to publicly support breaking any FAR." I agree. The issue is not breaking an FAR. The issue is a rational interpretation of the intent of FAR 91.217 (b) which calls for tests of the installation. It does not call for the elaborate, but undefined tests that HQ FAA described in response to my letter. 5) You wrote: "Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under the radar so to speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it." I agree. Hundreds of non TSO'd encoders in amateur built experimental aircraft have been performing satisfactorily both in the tests required by FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F and in flight under ATC control or radar contact for many years. This indicates to me that the elaborate tests that HQ FAA says are required to comply with FAR 91.217 (b) are not needed. 6) You wrote: "Im also not aware of anybody who has had enforcement action taken against them for using a nonTSOd encoder. If you have, please let us hear about the facts of the case." Please see the posting by "Brian Meyette" which reads in part: "I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA was saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder." I again thank you for your interest and welcome your support on this issue. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. <> <> ________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________ Time: 12:21:15 PM PST US From: Subject: Avionics-List: encoder approval --> Avionics-List message posted by: 8/14/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd Hello Brian, Thanks for your input. You wrote in part: "But you can use any encoder you want to. It doesn't have to be TSO'd. You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy yourself." I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR 91.217 is relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as called for in 91.217 (c) then the installation must pass the tests required by FAR 91.217 (b). Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has described a testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that is unreasonable. See their response to my letter in a previous posting. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge ________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________ Time: 01:43:32 PM PST US From: Subject: Avionics-List: encoder approval --> Avionics-List message posted by: 8/14/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd. Hello Brian, Thank you for your inputs on this subject. A bit of clarification if I may: 1) You wrote: " If your transponder really breaks, pull it out of the panel, carry it into the radio shop, have it fixed, and put it back in your panel. Your repairman's certificate means you get to do that." Actually the only thing that an individual's repairman's certificate for a specific amateur built experimental aircraft permits that individual to do is to perform and sign off the condition inspection that is required for that aircraft during the previous 12 calendar months. It does not permit him to repair, work on, or maintain that aircraft because no such permission is required for anyone, I repeat ANYONE, to repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft. So anyone, doesn't have to be the the holder of the repairman's certificate (aircraft builder), can do what you suggest above. 2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*" As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it has not received wide spread use. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. PS: A)It should be noted that there are FAR's that require that certain aircraft maintenance records be maintained. ABEA are not excused from those requirements. B) It should also be noted that, if the work on an ABEA is determined to be a major modification, regardless of who does it, the Operating Limitations for that specific aircraft should be consulted to determine the proper procedures to be followed. ________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________ Time: 05:16:11 PM PST US From: "Michael Hinchcliff" Subject: Avionics-List: Re: encoder approval --> Avionics-List message posted by: "Michael Hinchcliff" OC, thanks for your objective response to my message. I appreciate healthy debate in that it improves my understanding of the issues, in this case FAR 91.217. I now see what you are saying. Everything else aside, 91.217 (c) does not say the equipment must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO standards. My question to the non-TSO'd encoder community is this: How do you prove your equipment meets the required TSO standards? TSO certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is. Part (b) just references how the equipment is to be tested and does not necessarily prove compliance with the required TSO. My simpleton answer would be to either A.) formally prove the non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide the paperwork that goes with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by purchasing equipment that's already certified as meeting the standard and start flying. Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp. Have you barked up that tree yet? Michael H. ----- Original Message ----- From: Cc: ; Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: encoder approval > 8/14/2006 > > Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: > cfi@conwaycorp.net > > Hello Michael H. Thanks for your input. > > 1) You wrote: "In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not > be hasty about > accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but > not > necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have > unlimited > resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles > carefully." > > I agree. Maybe my choice of the word "proactive" was not the best. What I > really expected of EAA was for them to acknowledge that a (potential) > problem existed for their members and that the existence and proper > interpretation of FAR 91.217 (b) could solve that problem. > > 2) You wrote: "This would give the Airline Pilots Association and other > opponents to the AOPA/EAA ammunition to show that we are not capable of > following the rules as published > and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their > eyes) > and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards." > > I believe that complying with FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F places an > encoder / transponder installation in compliance with the intent of FAR > 91.217 (b). Please read those items carefully for yourself and tell us why > you would think differently. > > 3) You wrote: "I believe the EAA is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since > it is the current rule." > > The EAA did not even acknowledge the existence of 91.217 (b) on their > website or in communicating with me. They took the position that only > 91.217 (c) -- TSO'd encoders are required -- was relevant. > > 4) You wrote: "It would be foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to > publicly support breaking any FAR." > > I agree. The issue is not breaking an FAR. The issue is a rational > interpretation of the intent of FAR 91.217 (b) which calls for tests of > the installation. It does not call for the elaborate, but undefined tests > that HQ FAA described in response to my letter. > > 5) You wrote: "Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under > the radar so to > speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it." > > I agree. Hundreds of non TSO'd encoders in amateur built experimental > aircraft have been performing satisfactorily both in the tests required by > FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F and in flight under ATC control or radar > contact for many years. This indicates to me that the elaborate tests that > HQ FAA says are required to comply with FAR 91.217 (b) are not needed. > > 6) You wrote: "Im also not aware of anybody who has had enforcement action > taken against them for using a nonTSOd encoder. If you have, please > let us hear about the facts of the case." > > Please see the posting by "Brian Meyette" > which reads in part: > > "I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA > was > saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in > encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or > calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for > months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder." > > I again thank you for your interest and welcome your support on this > issue. > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > > < > In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not be hasty about > accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but > not > necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have > unlimited > resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles > carefully. To put this issue in the spotlight would be very BAD TIMING in > light of the user fee threat that has been looming for at 10 years now. > This > would give the Airline Pilots Association and other opponents to the > AOPA/EAA > ammunition to show that we are not capable of following the rules as > published > and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their > eyes) > and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards. I believe > the EAA > is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since it is the current rule. It > would be > foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to publicly support breaking > any FAR. > Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under the radar so to > speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it. Im also not > aware > of anybody who has had enforcement action taken against them for using a > non > TSOd encoder. If you have, please let us hear about the facts of the > case. Michael H.>> > > <> >