Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:14 AM - IFR Certification ()
2. 10:35 AM - Re: IFR Certification (rampil)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | IFR Certification |
6/13/2009
Hello Ira, You wrote: "If the boss at your local shop does not understand
the
regulations pertaining to OBAM aircraft, find another shop."
I agree that finding another shop is the best way to resolve this situation.
However outright condemnation of the boss for "not understand(ing) the
regulations pertaining to OBAM aircraft" is not warranted.
1) The issue is not OBAM (amateur built experimental aircraft) versus
standard type certificated aircraft.
2) 14 CFR 91.217 applies equally to both of those kinds of aircraft.
3) The fundamental issue relates to TSO'd versus non TSO'd altitude
encoders.
4) Note that 91.217 applies to flight under VFR as well as flight under IFR.
5) Headquarters FAA is in agreement with the boss's position of not
approving a non TSO'd altitude encoder unless the tests required by 14 CFR
paragraph 91.217 (b) have been accomplished.
6) FAA Headquaters says that the tests required by 91.217 (b) are far more
complex and demanding than the tests required by 91.411 and the associated
appendicies of 14 CFR part 43.
7) Some people dispute FAA Headquarters position on this issue, but no one
to date has adequately challenged them to change their position.
8) My current recommendations on this issue are:
A) Understand the issues. (Hence this posting to you and fellow builders).
B) Let sleeping dogs lie because if FAA Headquarers really tried to enforce
their position it would cause chaos in the amateur built community because
of the large number of non TSO'd altitude encoders already flying, being
built into aircraft, and being manufactured.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks.
'OC' Says: "The best investment we can make is the effort to gather and
understand knowledge."
=============================================
Time: 07:41:50 AM PST US
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: IFR Certification
From: "rampil" <ira.rampil@gmail.com>
My BMA system has served as my encoder for my Mode C for 5 years
in the NYC area. Islip Avionics had absolutely no issue with the
certifications.
If the boss at your local shop does not understand the
regulations pertaining to OBAM aircraft, find another shop. Especially,
since they would, if they finally elect to do the work, would take twice
as long and charge twice as much!
--------
Ira N224XS
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: IFR Certification |
Actually I didn't condemn the boss, I simply referenced the boss
as the key to the problem. I am familiar with the issues you raised
which is why when finally got IFR certification for myself, I treated
my airframe to a brand new Sandia SAE5-35 TSO'd blind encoder.
For VFR into B, C airspace the BMA should be fine according to my
reading of the regs.
--------
Ira N224XS
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=247961#247961
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|