Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 03:22 AM - Re: Airplane jacking, nose gear removal (Jim Sears)
2. 04:12 AM - Re: Airplane jacking, nose gear removal (Scott)
3. 05:23 AM - Nose gear Mod, MSB (Charles Heathco)
4. 06:26 AM - Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB (Bill VonDane)
5. 07:54 AM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (Mike Robertson)
6. 08:17 AM - Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replaced? (Knicholas2@aol.com)
7. 08:42 AM - Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB (Vanremog@aol.com)
8. 08:52 AM - Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB (Dale Ensing)
9. 09:20 AM - Construction/Restoration (Russell Lassetter)
10. 09:21 AM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (wgill10@comcast.net)
11. 12:32 PM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (Mike Robertson)
12. 01:33 PM - Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace (NationAir)
13. 01:38 PM - Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB (NationAir)
14. 01:54 PM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (Greg Williams)
15. 02:18 PM - RV Nose Gear SB Question (John Fasching)
16. 02:39 PM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (darnpilot@aol.com)
17. 02:53 PM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (David Leonard)
18. 02:54 PM - Re: Nose gear Mod, MSB (Scott)
19. 02:55 PM - Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace (Bob Collins)
20. 02:58 PM - Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replaced? (Scott)
21. 03:13 PM - Re:Propellor for sale (Glen Matejcek)
22. 03:24 PM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (David Leonard)
23. 03:48 PM - Re: RV Nose Gear SB Question (N67BT@AOL.COM)
24. 03:55 PM - Prop Clearance with New Nose Gear Leg (Emrath)
25. 04:20 PM - Re: RV Nose Gear SB Question (Richard Tasker)
26. 04:32 PM - Re: RV Nose Gear SB Question (Ron Lee)
27. 05:33 PM - Factory recall gear leg Ground Clearance (FASTPILOTRV8@aol.com)
28. 06:11 PM - Re: Factory recall gear leg Ground Clearance (Kevin Horton)
29. 06:15 PM - Re: Re: RV Nose Gear SB Question (Dale Walter)
30. 08:32 PM - Re: Re: RV Nose Gear SB Question (Ron Lee)
31. 09:01 PM - GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c (L Klingmuller)
32. 09:24 PM - Re: Re: RV Nose Gear SB Question (Dale Walter)
33. 11:29 PM - WTB RV6A or 7A (Jim Cone)
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: | Re: Airplane jacking, nose gear removal |
>> I didn't think there was such a thing as "mandatory" (ie, airworthiness
>> directives) service bulletins on experimentals. Granted, it might not
>> be a bad idea to comply, but I always thought these sorts of things were
>> left up to the aircraft manufacturer (builder)...not the designer.<<
Scott is correct. I've been flying airplanes for about 25 years. I've
owned airplanes for about 21 of those years. I like to hang out with the
mechanics at our airport. I've seen companies like Cessna use the "madatory
SB" many times to cover their butts. Like any other SB, it's up to the
discretion of the owner to comply. Until it's an AD, there is no such thing
as mandatory. Otherwise, the aircraft industry would have our family jewels
in a vice and be making big profits on parts to cover all the madatory
service bulletins they could dream up. It would cripple the aircraft
owners. Many of us are almost there, now. Fortunately, the FAA controls
ADs and has input from more than the manufacturers. That has saved entire
fleets of aircraft from being grounded permanently.
I look at Van's Aircraft's new "mandatory" service bulletins the same way.
They've been looking at the accident reports and decided to upgrade the nose
gear to give increased ground to fork clearance in hopes that might keep
down folded gear accidents. They've made at least two, maybe more, design
changes on the nose gear to cover nose gear related incidents. Now, their
lawyers have probably said if it's good for the newer models, why not make
it really safe for yourselves by making it "mandatory" so that the older kit
owners will be scared into complying? That really sucks; but, that's how it
is, today. You don't have to comply unless you think it's something that
will improve the product for you. It's a service bulletin, not an AD. I do
suggest that you give serious thought to your situation, though. Don't not
comply because I said it's OK not to. You may need to comply to make the
airplane safer for you.
I have a 1999 RV-6A that has had at least two, maybe up to four, SBs on the
nose gear. One was to replace the nose gear because cracks were showing up
at the entry point to the gear mount. Now, we have this "mandatory" service
bulletin. I did not comply with the first one because I knew the Van's demo
RV-6A had hundreds more landings than mine and didn't have the problem with
cracks. I check it each year, as my way of complying with the SB. If I
ever see cracks, I'll comply. I check the fork, as well. In fact, it's a
good idea to take the fork off and clean it inside the bushing area, anyway.
It gets pretty nasty in there from moisture. I learned that from my days as
a Grumman-American Cheetah owner.
Unfortunately, Van's Aircraft can't can't prevent nose gear accidents from
happening. There are pilots who are determined to break nose gears. I've
seen them on Cessnas, Grumman-Americans, and RVs. Grumman-Americans had a
reputation for broken nose gears. My own Grumman-American Cheetah had a
nose gear failure before I bought it. In the nine years I owned it, I never
had a problem with it. My most recent experience with seeing one was an
Eviktor LSA aircraft which a student clobbered on a hard nose gear landing.
In each incident, it could be shown that the pilot was the problem, not the
design. It's a known fact that one is not supposed to land on the nose
gear.
I land my RV on hard surface and grass. My buddy's grass strip is pretty
nice; but, it has a few lumps in it that my nose gear can catch, from time
to time. When it does, I get to ride out a bounce back into the air. Some
of those have been pretty hard. I still fail to find cracks, anywhere. I
think it would take a pretty brutal nose gear landing to cause the damage
the SB is trying to prevent. We have some folks out there who can do that.
When I sold my Cheetah to a friend of mine, he sold his two place Grumman to
an older gentleman who seemed rough on anything he touched. That was my
first and only observation of the man. On his way home, he took out the
nose gear. My observation was correct. Not long after that, he and his
friend totalled a nice little C150. Unfortunately, they totalled themselves
with it. Neither needed to be PICs of anything.
Like all the other service bulletins that have come from Van's, I'll comply
in my own way. I'll watch the nose gear assembly for cracks, etc. and keep
flying with the one I have. If it ever becomes an AD, one that I'll have to
create as the manufacturer of that aircraft, I'll comply with it as written,
for sure. As for you, the simple thing may be to comply with the SB as
written. Don't let me be the one to sway that decision for you.
One final thing. I really don't like the stance of the newer tri-gear kits.
My -6A has a rakish stance because the main gears let the tail sit lower.
It's easier for my short legs to handle when I get into the airplane. I'm
sure the tall mains were designed into the new kits to cover the nose gear
problem. I admit my RV's nose gear does allow for an easier nose gear first
contact; but, one soon learns the correct flare to prevent that from
happening. I asked about getting shorter mains for my RV-7A kit; but, they
had increased the diameters of the gear legs to allow more gross weight.
The older gear legs would be too loose in the mounts. Oh, well.
Jim Sears in KY
RV-6A N198JS (Scooter)
RV-7A #70317 (Slowly building fuselage)
EAA Tech Counselor
do not archive
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: Airplane jacking, nose gear removal |
I think Jim is probably right about Van covering his rear end. On their
website, they have a letter from March 10, 2005 addressing this same
issue. At that time, they believed it was mostly pilot abuse causing
problems. Again, I am not recommending that you comply or not comply.
See http://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/letters/nosegear.pdf for the letter
I am referencing. Please especially note their comment first sentence
of paragraph three, but do read the entire note...
do not archive
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Jim Sears wrote:
>
>
>>> I didn't think there was such a thing as "mandatory" (ie,
>>> airworthiness directives) service bulletins on experimentals.
>>> Granted, it might not be a bad idea to comply, but I always thought
>>> these sorts of things were left up to the aircraft manufacturer
>>> (builder)...not the designer.<<
>>
>
> Scott is correct. I've been flying airplanes for about 25 years.
> I've owned airplanes for about 21 of those years. I like to hang out
> with the mechanics at our airport. I've seen companies like Cessna
> use the "madatory SB" many times to cover their butts. Like any other
> SB, it's up to the discretion of the owner to comply. Until it's an
> AD, there is no such thing as mandatory. Otherwise, the aircraft
> industry would have our family jewels in a vice and be making big
> profits on parts to cover all the madatory service bulletins they
> could dream up. It would cripple the aircraft owners. Many of us are
> almost there, now. Fortunately, the FAA controls ADs and has input
> from more than the manufacturers. That has saved entire fleets of
> aircraft from being grounded permanently.
>
> I look at Van's Aircraft's new "mandatory" service bulletins the same
> way. They've been looking at the accident reports and decided to
> upgrade the nose gear to give increased ground to fork clearance in
> hopes that might keep down folded gear accidents. They've made at
> least two, maybe more, design changes on the nose gear to cover nose
> gear related incidents. Now, their lawyers have probably said if it's
> good for the newer models, why not make it really safe for yourselves
> by making it "mandatory" so that the older kit owners will be scared
> into complying? That really sucks; but, that's how it is, today. You
> don't have to comply unless you think it's something that will improve
> the product for you. It's a service bulletin, not an AD. I do
> suggest that you give serious thought to your situation, though.
> Don't not comply because I said it's OK not to. You may need to
> comply to make the airplane safer for you.
>
>
Message 3
| 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: | Nose gear Mod, MSB |
Heres my take on this. I have hit nose hard twice in my 6a landing in
gusting very high cross winds, hard enuff to hear and feel the nose gear
protesting, thought it a miricle that prop didnt hit the pavement. No
damage resulted for wich Im gratefull. I rarely go in to a grass strip,
and when I do, I have checked it out on foot first.Then I am extra
vigilant and hold nose off as long as posible and taxi slowly. I know 2
6a owners back in Atl area that have taken there 6a's into grass strips
often, and under less than ideal conditions, never a problem. My
conclusion is these nose gear foldups are pilot error, in some form or
another. As for me, I am keeping the orig "problem" gear, and
maintaining healthy respect for proper landing techniques. Charlie
Heathco Fayetteville Ar
Message 4
| 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: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
I tend to agree with you on this and am debating whether or not I will
do the upgrade...
My only concern is how your insurance company will react if you do have
an incident and you didn't comply with the "mandatory" service
bulletin... I am gong to call mine this morning and see what they say...
-Bill VonDane
www.rv8a.com
> Charles Heathco wrote:
>> Heres my take on this. I have hit nose hard twice in my 6a landing
in gusting very high cross winds, hard enuff to hear and feel the nose
gear protesting, thought it a miricle that prop didnt hit the pavement.
No damage resulted for wich Im gratefull. I rarely go in to a grass
strip, and when I do, I have checked it out on foot first.Then I am
extra vigilant and hold nose off as long as posible and taxi slowly. I
know 2 6a owners back in Atl area that have taken there 6a's into grass
strips often, and under less than ideal conditions, never a problem. My
conclusion is these nose gear foldups are pilot error, in some form or
another. As for me, I am keeping the orig "problem" gear, and
maintaining healthy respect for proper landing techniques. Charlie
Heathco Fayetteville Ar
>>
>>
>>
Message 5
| 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: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for
121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Ce
ssna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to b
e removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91,
which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown t
o meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention T
SO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do no
t apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what
has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Ope
rating Limitations bring them into play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older establish
ed repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look through t
he FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be T
SO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the require
ment for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standa
rd during testing, and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standar
ds that I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in t
he aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700> From: kellym@aviating.com> To: rv-
list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altime
m@aviating.com>> > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Refere
nce is 91.205. > No mention of TSO at all.> If you want to minimize cost, b
uy an overhauled unit from one of the > reputable instrument shops like Cen
tury Instruments, for about $375.> For certification the requirements are i
n Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no > mention of TSO.> In general, TSO is only
required for Part 135 and 121.> > darnpilot@aol.com wrote:> > Thanks for t
he replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only > > one in town).
I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between > > the FAA and their
own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics > > inspector) says the sh
op cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They > > showed me the FARs that
they THINK says this, but it is clear that > > they are wrong.> >> > My ph
ilosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be > > force
d to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I > > have to
go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town > > avionic
s shop for this simple requirement.> >> > I'm going to contact the EAA and
get them on the ass of the local FSDO > > and try to educate them according
ly. This is the kind of excrement I > > was trying to get away from by goin
g to the experimental world.> >> > Jeff> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>> > To: rv-list@matronics.com> > S
ent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is N
on-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > The only things that have to be cert
ified for IFR are the transponder, > > encoder, and altimeter. All can be d
one in about an hour of work. > > You don't really certify the "airplane",
just that the pitot/static > > and transponder have been tested and are wit
hin the standards of the > > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 mo
nths to be IFR "certified".> >> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instru
ments aren't TSO'd. Just go > > to an avionics shop and tell them you need
a transponder and pitot > > static check. If they won't do it because you h
ave a big > > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't
want to > > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you >
> where to go.> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ----> > From
: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com > > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list@gmai
l.com>>> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>> > Sent
: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: An
swer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > So, if I want my -7 blesse
d for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop > > friendly to Experimentals and
ask them to certify the airplane or each > > instrument?> >> > On Nov 13, 2
007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com > > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>
> wrote:> >> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experime
ntal"> > some places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key,>
> and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of> > those c
razy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was> > lucky, I'm at an a
irport that has alot of experimentals, and they> > are easy to work with. A
s a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky> > Mountain uEncoder was more accu
rate than most he tests...he was> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built
that in my garage too,> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR en
vironment! Scary!> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ----> > Fr
om: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard@gmail.com>>> > To:
rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>> > Sent: Tuesday, Nov
ember 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-T
SO Altimeter - Good> > for IFR?> >> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for e
xperimental aircraft. I> > would consider making the shop show you where it
says that a TSO> > is required to pass the static-system test.> >> > I hav
e 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and> > they both pa
ss every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to> > less than 10' error at
any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform> > any TSO steam guage. But that
is beside the point.> >> > If you google you can find a copy of the instru
ctions for> > performing the static system test.> >> > Dave Leonard> >> > O
n Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com> > <mailto:darnpilot@aol.com>> w
rote:> >> > Help.> >> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification
, i.e.,> > pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter> > (
I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs> > and/or clarifi
cation that says this is legal for IFR in an> > experimental aircraft? My l
ocal avionics shop says no, and> > will not do the test and certification.>
>> > Thank you in advance.> >> > Jeff> > ---------------------------------
---------------------------------------> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail
.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!> >> > *>
>> >> >> >> >> > *> >> >> >> >> > -- > > David Leonard> >> > Turbo Rotary
RV-6 N4VY> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/>>
> http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>> > -------------------
-----------------------------------------------------> > Get easy, one-clic
k access to your favorites.> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.> > *> >> >> > *> > ------
------------------------------------------------------------------> > <http
://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolc
========================> _
-========================
===========> > >
_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
Message 6
| 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: | Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replaced? |
Van is basically voiding every RV nose dragger's
insurance policy until this is fixed.
This quote is from one of the earlier posts. Is this true? Will my
insurance company not honor any claims unless this repair is made?
For the record, I do plan to make the change, I just have a distrust for
insurance companies... and lawyers... and car salesmen... and cell phone
companies... and Rottweillers...
Kim Nicholas
RV9A
Message 7
| 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: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
In a message dated 11/14/2007 6:28:11 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bill@vondane.com writes:
I tend to agree with you on this and am debating whether or not I will
do the upgrade...
My only concern is how your insurance company will react if you do have
an incident and you didn't comply with the "mandatory" service
bulletin... I am gong to call mine this morning and see what they say...
====================================================
The effectivity date on the service bulletin is by next condition
inspection. I will do it by then (02/2008) and I believe that that meets the
letter
and intent of the mandatory requirement. Am I mistaken?
N1GV (RV-6A, Flying 870hrs, O-360-A1A, C/S, Silicon Valley)
Message 8
| 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: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
If the nose gear modification is "mandatory", why has Van's Aircraft not
notified builders instead of letting it be discovered?
It is possible that an owner could fly for years without learning of the
modifaction if he did not visit Van's web site or belong to one of the on
line groups.
Dale Ensing
>
> My only concern is how your insurance company will react if you do have an
> incident and you didn't comply with the "mandatory" service bulletin
> -Bill VonDane
> www.rv8a.com
>
Message 9
| 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: | Construction/Restoration |
Hello all,
I would like to offer my aircraft construction/restoration services to the
group. I have a 40' X 60' hangar in NE Georgia and have a lifetime of
experience with various aircraft. I can construct large projects for $15.00
per hour with first-class workmanship. Please email me directly or give me
a call.
Russ Lassetter
202 Aviation Blvd.
Cleveland, GA 30528
706-348-7514
rblassett@alltel.net
Message 10
| 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: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not TSO'd.
Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing requirements
at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder must meet TSO.
Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for 121
and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Cessna instrument
cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to be removed
as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91, which calls
for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard
during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft
is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments.
And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft.
The only thing we have that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft
is FAR 91.205, and only because the Operating Limitations bring them into
play.
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair
stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look through the FAR's
and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be
used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for the
encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing,
and to the ELT.
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standards that
I have fought, and proven.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft
parts manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> From: kellym@aviating.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
>
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot@aol.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance. The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
> >
> > The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder,
> > encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> > You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of the
> > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR "certified".
> >
> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go
> > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want to
> > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lancairs, glasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you
> > where to go.
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com
> > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com>>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
> >
> > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each
> > instrument?
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com
> > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> > some places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key,
> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard@gmail.com>>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> > for IFR?
> >
> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > is required to pass the static-system test.
> >
> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> >
> > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > performing the static system test.
> >
> > Dave Leonard
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com
> > <mailto:darnpilot@aol.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Help.
> >
> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter
> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > will not do the test and certification.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Jeff
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Leonard
> >
> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/>
> > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!
> > *
> >
>========
>
>
>
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
<html><body>
<DIV>Hello Mike,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not
TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing
requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder
must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Bill </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px
solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: Mike Robertson
<mrobert569@hotmail.com> <BR>
<STYLE>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</STYLE>
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even
for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then
the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have
to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside
of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must
be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention
TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through
29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that
covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because
the Operating Limitations bring them into play.<BR> <BR>I know that the
old school inspectors with the FAA and with older established repair stations
don't buy this but if they were forced to look throu
gh the
FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to
be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requirement for
the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing,
and to the ELT.<BR> <BR>Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy
subject within Flight Standards that I have fought, and proven.<BR> <BR>Mike
Robertson<BR>Das Fed<BR> <BR>P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are
held to only those items listed in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<HR id=stopSpelling>
<BR>> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700<BR>> From: kellym@aviating.com<BR>>
To: rv-list@matronics.com<BR>> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer;
Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?<BR>> <BR>> --> RV-List message
posted by: Kelly McMullen <kellym@aviating.com><BR>> <BR>> The
regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205. <BR>> No
mention of TSO at all.<BR>> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled
unit from one of the <BR>> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments,
for about $375.<BR>> For certification the requirements are in Part
43, Appendix E. Again, no <BR>> mention of TSO.<BR>> In general, TSO is
only required for Part 135 and 121.<BR>> <BR>> darnpilot@aol.com wrote:<BR>>
> Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the
only <BR>> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught
between <BR>> > the FAA and their own ignorance
. The
local Orlando FSDO (avionics <BR>> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify"
a non-TSO'd altimeter. They <BR>> > showed me the FARs that they THINK
says this, but it is clear that <BR>> > they are wrong.<BR>> ><BR>>
> My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might
be <BR>> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason
that I <BR>> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense
of an out of town <BR>> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.<BR>>
><BR>> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass
of the local FSDO <BR>> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the
kind of excrement I <BR>> > was trying to get away from by going to the
experimental world.<BR>> ><BR>> > Jeff<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com><BR>>
> To: rv-list@matroni
cs.com
<BR>> > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm<BR>> > Subject: Re: RV-List:
Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?<BR>> ><BR>> >
The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder, <BR>>
> encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work. <BR>>
> You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
<BR>> > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of
the <BR>> > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR
"certified".<BR>> ><BR>> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments
aren't TSO'd. Just go <BR>> > to an avionics shop and tell them
you need a transponder and pitot <BR>> > static check. If they won't
do it because you have a big <BR>> > "experimental" sticker on your plane,
then you probably won't want to <BR>> > do business with them anyway.
Ask any of the flying IFR birds, <BR>> > lanca
irs, g
lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you <BR>> > where to go.<BR>> ><BR>> > Paul Besing<BR>> ><BR>> > ----- Original Message ----<BR>> > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com <BR>> > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com>><BR>> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com><BR>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM<BR>> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?<BR>> ><BR>> > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop <BR>> > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each <BR>> > instrument?<BR>> ><BR>> > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com <BR>> > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"<BR>> > some places are s
ent sl
amming their doors, throwing away the key,<BR>> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of<BR>> > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was<BR>> > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they<BR>> > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky<BR>> > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was<BR>> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,<BR>> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!<BR>> ><BR>> > Paul Besing<BR>> ><BR>> > ----- Original Message ----<BR>> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard@gmail.com>><BR>> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com><BR>> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM<BR>> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good<BR>> &
gt; fo
r IFR?<BR>> ><BR>> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I<BR>> > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO<BR>> > is required to pass the static-system test.<BR>> ><BR>> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and<BR>> > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to<BR>> > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform<BR>> > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.<BR>> ><BR>> > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for<BR>> > performing the static system test.<BR>> ><BR>> > Dave Leonard<BR>> ><BR>> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com<BR>> > <mailto:darnpilot@aol.com>> wrote:<BR>> ><BR>> > Help.<BR>> ><BR>> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,<BR>> > pitot/static, altimete
r, &am
p; transponder check. The altimeter<BR>> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs<BR>> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an<BR>> > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and<BR>> > will not do the test and certification.<BR>> ><BR>> > Thank you in advance.<BR>> ><BR>> > Jeff<BR>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!<BR>> ><BR>> > *<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > *<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > -- <BR>> > David Leonard<BR>> ><BR>> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY<BR>> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/><BR>> > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/><B
R>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.<BR>> ><BR>> > *<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > *<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > *<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > *<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.<BR>> > *<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> > *<BR>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!<BR>> > *<BR>> ><BR>>=========<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR><BR><BR>
<HR>
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! <A href="http://www.reallivemoms.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us" target=_new>Get 'em!</A> <PRE><B><FONT face="courier new,courier" size=2 color000000?>
</B></FONT></PRE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<pre><b><font size=2 color="#000000" face="courier new,courier">
</b></font></pre></body></html>
Message 11
| 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: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements of
FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeters a
nd digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 respectively.
So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the standards of the tho
se TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the testing standards in FAR 43
they will meet the TSO's. The electronic standards of today's world meet or
exceed the TSO requirements of yesterdays world. Dynon knew what those TS
O standards were before they designed and built their units. I had the cha
nce to speak with the folks from Dynon at length several years ago when the
n D10 first came out, as I was concerned about this very issue.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
From: wgill10@comcast.netTo: rv-list@matronics.comSubject: RE: RV-List: Nee
ded: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:
19:29 +0000
Hello Mike,
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not T
SO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testing r
equirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder mu
st meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
Bill
-------------- Original message -------------- From: Mike Robertson <mrober
t569@hotmail.com>
Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even for
121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the Ce
ssna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have to b
e removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR 91,
which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown t
o meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention T
SO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do no
t apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers what
has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the Ope
rating Limitations bring them into play. I know that the old school inspect
ors with the FAA and with older established repair stations don't buy this
but if they were forced to look throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what st
ates that all flight instruments must be TSO'd to be used for instrument fl
ight, they could only point to the requirement for the encoding altimeter a
nd transponder having to meet a TSO standard during testing, and to the ELT
. Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Stand
ards that I have fought, and proven. Mike RobertsonDas Fed P.S. For 121 and
135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in the aircraft part
s manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700> From: kellym@aviating.com> To: rv-
list@matronics.com> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altime
m@aviating.com>> > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Refere
nce is 91.205. > No mention of TSO at all.> If you want to minimize cost, b
uy an overhauled unit from one of the > reputable instrument shops like Cen
tury Instruments, for about $375.> For certification the requirements are i
n Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no > mention of TSO.> In general, TSO is only
required for Part 135 and 121.> > darnpilot@aol.com wrote:> > Thanks for t
he replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only > > one in town).
I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between > > the FAA and their
own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics > > inspector) says the s
hop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They > > showed me the FARs tha
t they THINK says this, but it is clear that > > they are wrong.> >> > My p
hilosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be > > forc
ed to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I > > have t
o go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town > > avioni
cs shop for this simple requirement.> >> > I'm going to contact the EAA and
get them on the ass of the local FSDO > > and try to educate them accordin
gly. This is the kind of excrement I > > was trying to get away from by goi
ng to the experimental world.> >> > Jeff> >> >> > -----Original Message----
-> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>> > To: rv-list@matroni cs.com >
> Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; I
s Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > The only things that have to be c
ertified for IFR are the transponder, > > encoder, and altimeter. All can b
e done in about an hour of work. > > You don't really certify the "airplane
", just that the pitot/static > > and transponder have been tested and are
within the standards of the > > regulations. This needs to be done every 24
months to be IFR "certified".> >> > I wouldn't even tell them that the ins
truments aren't TSO'd. Just go > > to an avionics shop and tell them you ne
ed a transponder and pitot > > static check. If they won't do it because yo
u have a big > > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably wo
n't want to > > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR bir
ds, > > lanca irs, g lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell
you > > where to go.> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ----> >
From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com > > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list
@gmail.com>>> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>> >
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Neede
d: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?> >> > So, if I want my -7 b
lessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop > > friendly to Experimentals
and ask them to certify the airplane or each > > instrument?> >> > On Nov
13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com > > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo
.com>> wrote:> >> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Exp
erimental"> > some places are s ent sl amming their doors, throwing away th
e key,> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of> >
those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was> > lucky, I'm
at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they> > are easy to work
with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky> > Mountain uEncoder was mo
re accurate than most he tests...he was> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and
I built that in my garage too,> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an
IFR environment! Scary!> >> > Paul Besing> >> > ----- Original Message ---
-> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard@gmail.com>>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>> > Sent: Tuesd
ay, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; I
s Non-TSO Altimeter - Good> & gt; fo r IFR?> >> > Without question, non-TSO
is OK for experimental aircraft. I> > would consider making the shop show
you where it says that a TSO> > is required to pass the static-system test.
> >> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and> >
they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to> > less than
10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform> > any TSO steam gua
ge. But that is beside the point.> >> > If you google you can find a copy o
f the instructions for> > performing the static system test.> >> > Dave Leo
nard> >> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com> > <mailto:darnpilot
@aol.com>> wrote:> >> > Help.> >> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR c
ertification, i.e.,> > pitot/static, altimete r, &am p; transponder check.
The altimeter> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an> > experimen
tal aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and> > will not do the test a
nd certification.> >> > Thank you in advance.> >> > Jeff> > ---------------
---------------------------------------------------------> > <http://o.aolc
dn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp0005000
0000003>!> >> > *> >> >> >> >> >> > *> >> >> >> >> > -- > > David Leonard>
>> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.ro
taryroster.net/>> > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>> > -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------> >
Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.> >> > *> >> >> > *> >> >> > *
> >> >> > *> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------
------------------> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.> > *> >
> >> > *> > ---------------------------------------------------------------
---------> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/te
xt.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003>!> > *> >>=========> >
>
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ' together at last. -
Get it now.
http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid=CL10062
6971033
Message 12
| 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: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace |
NO - this is not true.
--------
David McCoy
Branch Manager
Light Aircraft Division
NationAir Aviation Insurance
www.nationair.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146024#146024
Message 13
| 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: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
A Mandatory Service Bulletin does not have to be complied with under an "experimental
airworthiness certificate" and Part 91 operations. Insuance companies
do not have requirements in their policies that state service bullitens to be
complied with for you to have coverage.
--------
David McCoy
Branch Manager
Light Aircraft Division
NationAir Aviation Insurance
www.nationair.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146025#146025
Message 14
| 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: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
So how about the GPS moving map (Blue Mtn EFIS one) being used for a GPS
approach? It isn't TSO'd. Would I use the same arguement? If I have the
altimeter, pitot/static system & transponder & encoder inspected can I do
approaches using features in my EFIS/one?
Greg
On Nov 14, 2007 12:30 PM, Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements o
f
> FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeters
> and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88respectivel
y. So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the
> standards of the those TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the testin
g
> standards in FAR 43 they will meet the TSO's. The electronic standards of
> today's world meet or exceed the TSO requirements of yesterdays world.
> Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they designed and built
> their units. I had the chance to speak with the folks from Dynon at leng
th
> several years ago when then D10 first came out, as I was concerned about
> this very issue.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: wgill10@comcast.net
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR
?
> Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:19:29 +0000
>
>
> Hello Mike,
>
> I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not
> TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the testin
g
> requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that the encoder
> must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
>
> Bill
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even fo
r
> 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true then the
> Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would have
to
> be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FAR
91,
> which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be shown
to
> meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instruments
> installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT mention
> TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29 do
> not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers w
hat
> has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the
> Operating Limitations bring them into play.
>
> I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older
> established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to loo
k
> throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instrumen
ts
> must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to
the
> requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a T
SO
> standard during testing, and to the ELT.
>
> Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight
> Standards that I have fought, and proven.
>
> Mike Robertson
> Das Fed
>
> P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in
> the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> > From: kellym@aviating.com
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> IFR?
> >
> >
> > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> > No mention of TSO at all.
> > If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> > reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> > For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, n
o
>
> > mention of TSO.
> > In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
> >
> > darnpilot@aol.com wrote:
> > > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > > the FAA and their own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > > they are wrong.
> > >
> > > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might b
e
>
> > > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of tow
n
>
> > > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> > >
> > > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSD
O
>
> > > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>
> > > To: rv-list@matroni cs.com
> > > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> IFR?
> > >
> > > The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder
,
>
> > > encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> > > You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of the
> > > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR
> "certified".
> > >
> > > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go
> > > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> > > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> > > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want to
> > > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > > lanca irs, g lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell yo
u
>
> > > where to go.
> > >
> > > Paul Besing
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com
> > > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com>>
> > > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> IFR?
> > >
> > > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> > > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or eac
h
>
> > > instrument?
> > >
> > > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com
> > > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> > > some places are s ent sl amming their doors, throwing away the key,
> > > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> > > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> > > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> > > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> > > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> > > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> > > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> > >
> > > Paul Besing
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard@gmail.com>
>
> > > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> > & gt; fo r IFR?
> > >
> > > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > > is required to pass the static-system test.
> > >
> > > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> > >
> > > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > > performing the static system test.
> > >
> > > Dave Leonard
> > >
> > > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com
> > > <mailto:darnpilot@aol.com>> wrote:
> > >
> > > Help.
> > >
> > > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > > pitot/static, altimete r, &am p; transponder check. The altimeter
> > > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > > will not do the test and certification.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > <
> http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid
=aolcmp00050000000003
> >!
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > David Leonard
> > >
> > > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/>
> > > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>*> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > <
> http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid
=aolcmp00050000000003
> >!
> > > *
> > >
> >========
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!<http://www.reallivemoms
.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
>
>
> *
>
> *
>
> blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> t=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> p://forums.matronics.com
> *
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ' together at last. G
et
> it now!<http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?pid
=CL100626971033>
>
> *
>
===========
com/contribution
===========
nics.com/Navigator?RV-List
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 15
| 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: | RV Nose Gear SB Question |
I have the 'improved' nose gear leg on my RV6A that was provided by
Van's several years ago, so I am going to have Harmon cut/rethread mine
and purchase a new fork from Vans.
My question for those of you that have done this: What is the change
and/or difficulty with the brackets that attach the fairings to the axle
bolt and the fork? What is needed or difficult to do? I can't get a
handle on this area of the change.
Thanks for any advise.
Message 16
| 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: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
All:
I had a heart-to-heart with the Orlando FSDO today.=C2- A conference call
with the [troublesome] Inspector and his boss.=C2- The Inspector was belli
gerent and arrogant, stating unequivocally that I was wrong.=C2- The only
quarter he would give was that I should send him the information I had for h
is review.=C2- I said I would and did (via email).=C2-
His boss was very quiet on the call, and at the end I pressed him for an opi
nion.=C2- He said to send the information and he would ensure its review.
=C2- Well, this afternoon I got a call from the Inspector.=C2- He was (t
o his credit) very soft-spoken and (my impression) contrite.=C2- He said i
t "looked like" it was possible to do what I wanted, and said that by tomorr
ow he would have a final answer.=C2- Yea!
I suspect that my call with him and his boss got the ball rolling, and I fur
ther suspect that the EAA (whom I contacted about this) may have made an inq
uiry or two.
I think I have may have gotten this resolved.=C2- Principle is sometimes a
good thing to stand up for.=C2- Now those coming behind me will have an e
asier time, and I will not have to hunt down a shop to get my IFR done.
I'll let you know what tomorrow brings.
Thanks for all the replies, opinions, and help.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 3:30 pm
Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements of F
AR 43 then it may be used.=C2- What 91.217(c) states is that the altimeter
s and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88 respectivel
y.=C2- So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets the standards of t
he those TSO's.=C2- Basically, if the=C2-encoder meets the testing stand
ards in FAR 43 they will=C2-meet the TSO's.=C2-The electronic standards
of today's world meet or exceed=C2-the TSO requirements of yesterdays worl
d.=C2- Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they designed and b
uilt their units.=C2- I had the chance to speak with=C2-the folks from D
ynon at length several years ago when then D10 first came out, as I was conc
erned about this very issue.
=C2-
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
=C2-
From: wgill10@comcast.net
Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
Hello Mike,
=C2-
I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is not TS
O'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use=C2-if it meets the testin
g requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c)=C2-indicates that the enc
oder must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
=C2-
Bill=C2-=C2-
=C2-
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com>
Not bad.=C2- You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence.=C2-
Even for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO.=C2- If that were tru
e then the Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster wou
ld have to be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd.=C2-
=C2-Outside of FAR 91, which calls for a=C2-TSO for the ELT and that the
Transponder must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs t
hat covers ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29,
and they do NOT mention TSO's at all for instruments.=C2- And we all know
that FARs 23 through 29 do not apply to Experimental aircraft.=C2- The on
ly thing we have that covers what has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR
91.205, and only because the Operating Limitations bring them into play.
=C2-
I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older establishe
d repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to look throu gh th
e FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instruments must be TSO
'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point to the requiremen
t for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a TSO standard d
uring testing, and to the ELT.
=C2-
Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight Standard
s that I have fought, and proven.
=C2-
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
=C2-
P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed in th
e aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> From: kellym@aviating.com
> To: rv-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR?
>
>
> The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205.
> No mention of TSO at all.
> If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again, no
> mention of TSO.
> In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
>
> darnpilot@aol.com wrote:
> > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only
> > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > the FAA and their own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter. They
> > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > they are wrong.
> >
> > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might be
> > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that I
> > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of town
> > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> >
> > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO
> > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement I
> > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Besing <pbesing@yahoo.com>
> > To: rv-list@matroni cs.com
> > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IF
R?
> >
> > The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the transponder,
> > encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> > You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of the
> > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR "certified"
.
> >
> > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just go
> > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want to
> > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > lanca irs, g lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell you
> > where to go.
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com
> > <mailto:mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com>>;
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>;
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IF
R?
> >
> > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each
> > instrument?
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com
> > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>>; wrote:
> >
> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> > some places are s ent sl amming their doors, throwing away the key,
> > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard@gmail.com>>;
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>;
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> & gt; fo r IFR?
> >
> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > is required to pass the static-system test.
> >
> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> >
> > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > performing the static system test.
> >
> > Dave Leonard
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com
> > <mailto:darnpilot@aol.com>>; wrote:
> >
> > Help.
> >
> > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > pitot/static, altimete r, &am p; transponder check. The altimeter
> > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > will not do the test and certification.
> >
> > Thank you in advance.
> >
> > Jeff
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003>;!
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Leonard
> >
> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/>;
> > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>;> > -----------------
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003>;!
> > *
> >
>========
>
>
>
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
://forums.matronics.com
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
://forums.matronics.com
Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook =93 together at last
. Get it now!
-
-= -- Please Support Your Lists This Month --
-= (And Get Some AWESOME FREE Gifts!)
-
-= November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Click on
-= the Contribution link below to find out more about
-= this year's Terrific Free Incentive Gifts!
-
-= List Contribution Web Site:
-
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-
-= Thank you for your generous support!
-
-= -Matt Dralle, List Admin.
-
-========================
-= - The RV-List Email Forum -
-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse
-= the many List utilities such as List Un/Subscription,
-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,
-= Photoshare, and much much more:
-= --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
-========================
-= - MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
-= Same great content also available via the Web Forums!
-= --> http://forums.matronics.com
-========================
________________________________________________________________________
.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp0005000000
0003
Message 17
| 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: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Now there is one that won't work. The GPS must meet the standards of the
TSO. Those standards include RAIM and other specifics in the presentation
of the the data the Bluemountain does not have. If Greg would just add
RAIM, then we might be able to use that GPS as a substitute for DME on
approaches, but right now you cant use it other than situational awareness.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
On Nov 14, 2007 1:53 PM, Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com> wrote:
> So how about the GPS moving map (Blue Mtn EFIS one) being used for a GPS
> approach? It isn't TSO'd. Would I use the same arguement? If I have th
e
> altimeter, pitot/static system & transponder & encoder inspected can I do
> approaches using features in my EFIS/one?
> Greg
>
> On Nov 14, 2007 12:30 PM, Mike Robertson <mrobert569@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > If it can be shown that the D10A encoder meets the testing requirements
> > of FAR 43 then it may be used. What 91.217(c) states is that the
> > altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and
> > TSO-C88 respectively. So, they do not have to meet the TSO, just meets
> > the standards of the those TSO's. Basically, if the encoder meets the
> > testing standards in FAR 43 they will meet the TSO's. The electronic
> > standards of today's world meet or exceed the TSO requirements of yeste
rdays
> > world. Dynon knew what those TSO standards were before they designed a
nd
> > built their units. I had the chance to speak with the folks from Dynon
at
> > length several years ago when then D10 first came out, as I was concern
ed
> > about this very issue.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> > Das Fed
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > From: wgill10@comcast.net
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> > IFR?
> > Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 17:19:29 +0000
> >
> >
> > Hello Mike,
> >
> > I have the Dynon D10A and plan to use its encoding altimeter which is
> > not TSO'd. Will it be acceptable per the FAR's for use if it meets the
> > testing requirements at the instrument shop? 91.217(c) indicates that
> > the encoder must meet TSO. Thanks in advace for clarification.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> > -------------- Original message --------------
> > From: Mike Robertson < mrobert569@hotmail.com>
> > Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even
> > for 121 and 135 there is no requirement for TSO. If that were true the
n the
> > Cessna instrument cluster for their engine instrument cluster would hav
e to
> > be removed as it is manufacturer specific and not TSO'd. Outside of FA
R 91,
> > which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that the Transponder must be show
n to
> > meet a TSO standard during testing, the FARs that covers ALL instrument
s
> > installed in aircraft is FAR Parts 23 through 29, and they do NOT menti
on
> > TSO's at all for instruments. And we all know that FARs 23 through 29
do
> > not apply to Experimental aircraft. The only thing we have that covers
what
> > has to be installed in our aircraft is FAR 91.205, and only because the
> > Operating Limitations bring them into play.
> >
> > I know that the old school inspectors with the FAA and with older
> > established repair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to l
ook
> > throu gh the FAR's and prove to you what states that all flight instrum
ents
> > must be TSO'd to be used for instrument flight, they could only point t
o the
> > requirement for the encoding altimeter and transponder having to meet a
TSO
> > standard during testing, and to the ELT.
> >
> > Sorry for the rant but this has been a touchy subject within Flight
> > Standards that I have fought, and proven.
> >
> > Mike Robertson
> > Das Fed
> >
> > P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to only those items listed
> > in the aircraft parts manuals and/or to 337's.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > > Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 22:09:17 -0700
> > > From: kellym@aviating.com
> > > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> > IFR?
> > >
> > >
> > > The regulation calls for a "sensitive altimeter". Reference is 91.205
.
> >
> > > No mention of TSO at all.
> > > If you want to minimize cost, buy an overhauled unit from one of the
> > > reputable instrument shops like Century Instruments, for about $375.
> > > For certification the requirements are in Part 43, Appendix E. Again,
> > no
> > > mention of TSO.
> > > In general, TSO is only required for Part 135 and 121.
> > >
> > > darnpilot@aol.com wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the
> > only
> > > > one in town). I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between
> > > > the FAA and their own ignorance . The local Orlando FSDO (avionics
> > > > inspector) says the shop cannot "certify" a non-TSO'd altimeter.
> > They
> > > > showed me the FARs that they THINK says this, but it is clear that
> > > > they are wrong.
> > > >
> > > > My philosophy is to try to give my local shop the work, but I might
> > be
> > > > forced to go elsewhere. It bugs me because there is no reason that
I
> >
> > > > have to go to all the additional trouble and expense of an out of
> > town
> > > > avionics shop for this simple requirement.
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to contact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local
> > FSDO
> > > > and try to educate them accordingly. This is the kind of excrement
I
> >
> > > > was trying to get away from by going to the experimental world.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com>
> > > > To: rv-list@matroni cs.com
> > > > Sent: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 7:25 pm
> > > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> > for IFR?
> > > >
> > > > The only things that have to be certified for IFR are the
> > transponder,
> > > > encoder, and altimeter. All can be done in about an hour of work.
> > > > You don't really certify the "airplane", just that the pitot/static
> > > > and transponder have been tested and are within the standards of th
e
> >
> > > > regulations. This needs to be done every 24 months to be IFR
> > "certified".
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't even tell them that the instruments aren't TSO'd. Just g
o
> >
> > > > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pitot
> > > > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big
> > > > "experimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want
> > to
> > > > do business with them anyway. Ask any of the flying IFR birds,
> > > > lanca irs, g lasairs, RV's, etc around your field and they'll tell
> > you
> > > > where to go.
> > > >
> > > > Paul Besing
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > From: Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com
> > > > <mailto: mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com>>
> > > > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com >
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 4:40:15 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> > for IFR?
> > > >
> > > > So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> > > > friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or
> > each
> > > > instrument?
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com
> > > > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental"
> > > > some places are s ent sl amming their doors, throwing away the key,
> > > > and changing their phone number because they are so afraid of
> > > > those crazy people who build airplanes in the garages. I was
> > > > lucky, I'm at an airport that has alot of experimentals, and they
> > > > are easy to work with. As a matter of fact, my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky
> > > > Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he tests...he was
> > > > very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage too,
> > > > which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> > > >
> > > > Paul Besing
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com <mailto:wdleonard@gmail.co
m
> > >>
> > > > To: rv-list@matronics.com <mailto:rv-list@matronics.com>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> > > & gt; fo r IFR?
> > > >
> > > > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I
> > > > would consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO
> > > > is required to pass the static-system test.
> > > >
> > > > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and
> > > > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to
> > > > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform
> > > > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.
> > > >
> > > > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for
> > > > performing the static system test.
> > > >
> > > > Dave Leonard
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com
> > > > <mailto: darnpilot@aol.com>> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Help.
> > > >
> > > > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > > > pitot/static, altimete r, &am p; transponder check. The altimeter
> > > > (I just found out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs
> > > > and/or clarification that says this is legal for IFR in an
> > > > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says no, and
> > > > will not do the test and certification.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you in advance.
> > > >
> > > > Jeff
> > > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > > > <
> > http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?nci
d=aolcmp00050000000003>!
> >
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Leonard
> > > >
> > > > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > > > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net <http://n4vy.rotaryroster.net/ >
> > > > http://RotaryRoster.net <http://rotaryroster.net/>*> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > > > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > > > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> > > > *
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *
> > > >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> > > > <http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.ht
m?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003
> > >!
> > > > *
> > > >
> > >========
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! Get 'em!<http://www.reallivemo
ms.com/?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
> >
> >
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> > blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> > t=_blank>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> > p://forums.matronics.com
> > *
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> > Windows Live Hotmail and Microsoft Office Outlook ' together at last.
Get
> > it now!<http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook/HA102225181033.aspx?p
id=CL100626971033>
> >
> > *
> >
> > _blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.co
m/contribution
> > t="_blank"> <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List>http://www.ma
tronics.com/Navigator?RV-List
> >
> > a> <http://forums.matronics.com>http://forums.matronics.com
> > *
> >
> >
> *
>
===========
com/contribution
===========
nics.com/Navigator?RV-List
===========
===========
> *
>
>
Message 18
| 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: Nose gear Mod, MSB |
I still think there is no such thing as "mandatory" on an experimental.
An AD would be mandatory, but I've never heard of an AD on an
experimental. First, how would the FAA know where to send the AD? For
example, in the aircraft registry, a couple of fictional people own
"RV-4s" lets say. Bill Davis owns one and Tom Bauer owns the other.
Bill's has some sort of problem and the FAA issues an AD. The AD
applies to all Davis RV-4 airplanes, of which there is one on the
registry. The Bauer RV-4 wouldn't get the AD, even though we all know
they are the same if built to plans and to equal building standards. If
my insurance company didn't cover MY (hypothetical, since I only own
taildraggers) RV-6A because I didn't change the nose gear, I'd pitch a
fit. I'm probably already paying a premium just for it BEING
experimental. If my nose gear folds because I land on it first, it's an
accident (isn't that what insurance is for?). Period. IS it a design
flaw? How do they know I didn't build my own nose gear leg?
do not archive.
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Bill VonDane wrote:
>
> I tend to agree with you on this and am debating whether or not I will
> do the upgrade...
>
> My only concern is how your insurance company will react if you do
> have an incident and you didn't comply with the "mandatory" service
> bulletin... I am gong to call mine this morning and see what they say...
>
> -Bill VonDane
> www.rv8a.com
>
>
> > Charles Heathco wrote:
> >> Heres my take on this. I have hit nose hard twice in my 6a landing
> in gusting very high cross winds, hard enuff to hear and feel the nose
> gear protesting, thought it a miricle that prop didnt hit the
> pavement. No damage resulted for wich Im gratefull. I rarely go in to
> a grass strip, and when I do, I have checked it out on foot first.Then
> I am extra vigilant and hold nose off as long as posible and taxi
> slowly. I know 2 6a owners back in Atl area that have taken there 6a's
> into grass strips often, and under less than ideal conditions, never a
> problem. My conclusion is these nose gear foldups are pilot error, in
> some form or another. As for me, I am keeping the orig "problem" gear,
> and maintaining healthy respect for proper landing techniques. Charlie
> Heathco Fayetteville Ar
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
Message 19
| 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: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace |
[quote="Knicholas2(at)aol.com"]
> Van is basically voiding every RV nose dragger's
> insurance policy until this is fixed.
See what's new a
> [b]
You know, I realize this is probably not going to endear me to many folks, but
after all these year's, hasn't Van's earned the benefit of the doubt that the
reason they're doing this is because they want us to be aware of improvements
in design so that we're all safer?
I mean, holy smokes, what has Richard VanGrunsven ever done to us that deserves
such acrimony?
To rehash old stuff, maybe all the flipovers ARE the result of pilot error. And
if I follow these threads, too bad for the guy who flips after making a mistake.
But maybe the design minimizes the effect of pilot error and, in the process, provides
a margin of safety.
What's so bad about that?
do not archive
--------
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146036#146036
Message 20
| 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: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replaced? |
When did Van get into the insurance business? How much is THAT subkit? ;)
Do Not Archive !!
Scott
http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
Knicholas2@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Van is basically voiding every RV nose dragger's
> insurance policy until this is fixed.
>
> This quote is from one of the earlier posts. Is this true? Will my
> insurance company not honor any claims unless this repair is made?
>
> For the record, I do plan to make the change, I just have a distrust
> for insurance companies... and lawyers... and car salesmen... and
> cell phone companies... and Rottweillers...
>
> Kim Nicholas
> RV9A
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> See what's new a
>
>
Message 21
| 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:Propellor for sale |
Hi Steve-
For some reason I haven't recieved the last couple RV digests, but I infer that
you put out some good info on your prop testing adventures. Thanks for the response,
and I'll look up the results when I get back in town next week.
Thanks again-
GM
Glen Matejcek
Message 22
| 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: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Greg,
No one can certify your plane for IFR. It doesn't quiet work like that.
The 2-year test everyone is taking about here comes in 2 versions. A VFR
Transponder test, and an IFR Static-Transponder test. It is often called
the Pitot-Static test because most shops test the pitot system as well, but
surprisingly there are no performance requirements for the pitot system. So
the test is of the SYSTEM. It includes the static lines, encoder,
altimiter, and transponder. There is no requirement for TSO except for the
transponder. If it passes, it is acceptable to use in IFR flight (if not
altered) for 2 years.
This does not mean that you AIRCRAFT is certified for IFR flight. Those
requirements depend somewhat on what FAR part you fly under, but it would
mean you also have navigation equipment appropriate for the approach being
flown, an AI, a DG, T&B, all VFR required insturments, and 2-way radio
communication. (and maybe some things I forgot). Those instruments do not
need to be "certified" for IFR, though they should perform up to the
standards of instruments that are TSO'd.
Even with all that, it does not mean that it is necessarily a good idea to
proceed into IMC.
Ask yourself the following questions. Would I bet my life that my altimeter
will not develop excessive error or stop functioning? Could I proceed in
IMC with the complete loss of any one of my instruments or SYSTEMS? Does
the type of flying I intend present excessive challenges in terms of pilot
workload? (most RV-s will not remain upright with the hands off the stick
and there is not a lot of room in an RV for charts etc..) i.e. an RV is a
more challenging IFR platform than most spam cans (yet still very doable
when approached right).
Thats what is really cool about experimental - it is up to you to decided
some of the big questions.
--
David Leonard
Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
http://RotaryRoster.net
On Nov 13, 2007 3:40 PM, Greg Williams <mr.gsun+rv-list@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, if I want my -7 blessed for IFR, I take it to an avionics shop
> friendly to Experimentals and ask them to certify the airplane or each
> instrument?
>
> On Nov 13, 2007 3:13 PM, Paul Besing < pbesing@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Good luck with that. As soon as they find out it's "Experimental" some
> > places are sent slamming their doors, throwing away the key, and changing
> > their phone number because they are so afraid of those crazy people who
> > build airplanes in the garages. I was lucky, I'm at an airport that has
> > alot of experimentals, and they are easy to work with. As a matter of fact,
> > my "Non-TSO'd" Rocky Mountain uEncoder was more accurate than most he
> > tests...he was very impressed :-) Oh yeah, and I built that in my garage
> > too, which also gives my altitude to ATC in an IFR environment! Scary!
> >
> > Paul Besing
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: David Leonard <wdleonard@gmail.com>
> > To: rv-list@matronics.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 8:04:54 AM
> > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for
> > IFR?
> >
> > Without question, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I would
> > consider making the shop show you where it says that a TSO is required to
> > pass the static-system test.
> >
> > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bluemountain) and they
> > both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate down to less than 10'
> > error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperform any TSO steam
> > guage. But that is beside the point.
> >
> > If you google you can find a copy of the instructions for performing
> > the static system test.
> >
> > Dave Leonard
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM, <darnpilot@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Help.
> > >
> > > My Glasair III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,
> > > pitot/static, altimeter, & transponder check. The altimeter (I just found
> > > out) is non-TSO'd. Does anyone have the Regs and/or clarification that says
> > > this is legal for IFR in an experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop
> > > says no, and will not do the test and certification.
> > >
> > > Thank you in advance.
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > > ------------------------------
> > > !
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > David Leonard
> >
> > Turbo Rotary RV-6 N4VY
> > http://N4VY.RotaryRoster.net
> > http://RotaryRoster.net
> > ------------------------------
> > Get easy, one-click access to your favorites.
> >
> > *
> >
> > *
> >
> >
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
Message 23
| 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: RV Nose Gear SB Question |
The relative mounting points are the same as the old fork. The fairing
should fit the new fork without modification. The attached photo of my gear
(which was posted earlier by someone else) kind of shows that.
Bob Trumpfheller
RV7A flying for 68 hours
mesawood.com
<<What is the change and/or difficulty with the brackets that attach the
fairings to the axle bolt and the fork? What is needed or difficult to do?>>
Message 24
| 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: | Prop Clearance with New Nose Gear Leg |
Has anyone found that shortening the leg in anyway reduces the prop ground
clearance? I also find that the Langair web site now states to include a
check for $100 and they will refund or bill for any difference.
Marty in Brentwood TN
Time: 06:55:38 PM PST US
From: Ralph Hoover <hooverra@verizon.net>
Subject: RV-List: Price for nose gear leg?
Charlie,
Here is the story on the gear leg mod from Harmon Lang. This is to go from a
-2 to a -3, if you have the -1 I believe you need the new leg, I was unable
to find the price on "the list" either. You probably need to call Van's.
/"The procedure to send the nose gear for modifying.
Pack it up in a box or tube and send it to Langair Machining 33094 Church
Rd. Warren Or. 97053. A drawing for a box is on the web site. A tube from a
carpet core also works. Include $75.00 for the work and enough to ship it
back. Cash or check. We don't take credit cards. Include a return label. We
will remove it from the container, cut the 1 in off, rethread and put it
back in the same container. The rethreading is done with a carbide thread
milling tool running in a CNC mill. If you have the mill you can do this
yourself. Cutter cost and set up will only cost about $300.00 or so. Expect
the time in our shop to be about 4 days. Until we know how many there will
be, we have to set one day aside to do the batch that comes in for the week.
Please help by making the repackaging go as easily as possible. NO
CONFUSION. Harmon"/
Message 25
| 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: RV Nose Gear SB Question |
I have not done this yet, but my understanding (and looking at various
pictures of installations) is that there is no change to the brackets or
fairings necessary. The bracket mounting holes are still in the same
place. I suppose if you wanted to raise the fairing to give more
clearance between it and the ground then you would have to modify it
appropriately - but no one seems to suggest that this be done.
Dick Tasker
John Fasching wrote:
> I have the 'improved' nose gear leg on my RV6A that was provided by
> Van's several years ago, so I am going to have Harmon cut/rethread
> mine and purchase a new fork from Vans.
>
> My question for those of you that have done this: What is the change
> and/or difficulty with the brackets that attach the fairings to the
> axle bolt and the fork? What is needed or difficult to do? I can't
> get a handle on this area of the change.
>
> Thanks for any advise.
> *
>
> *
Message 26
| 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: RV Nose Gear SB Question |
John, the axle and the other hole are in the same place. Should not
affect
the wheel pant.
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fasching
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 3:17 PM
Subject: RV-List: RV Nose Gear SB Question
I have the 'improved' nose gear leg on my RV6A that was provided by
Van's several years ago, so I am going to have Harmon cut/rethread mine
and purchase a new fork from Vans.
My question for those of you that have done this: What is the change
and/or difficulty with the brackets that attach the fairings to the axle
bolt and the fork? What is needed or difficult to do? I can't get a
handle on this area of the change.
Thanks for any advise.
Message 27
| 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: | Factory recall gear leg Ground Clearance |
I have a question . Did I miss something about this nose gear conversion
losing some ground clearance? The reason for my concern is that I have a prop
that is 2" longer than Vans recommends. I have 200 HP spinning the Hartzel
and only loosing 1" of ground clearance I thought I would not have a problem.
Please someone I the know please advise.
Dane
N838RV RV8a
Message 28
| 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: Factory recall gear leg Ground Clearance |
On 14-Nov-07, at 8:26 PM, FASTPILOTRV8@aol.com wrote:
> I have a question . Did I miss something about this nose gear
> conversion losing some ground clearance? The reason for my concern
> is that I have a prop that is 2" longer than Vans recommends. I
> have 200 HP spinning the Hartzel and only loosing 1" of ground
> clearance I thought I would not have a problem.
>
You shouldn't lose any ground clearance. Yes, the gear leg is 1"
shorter, but the new fork is at a steeper angle, so the axle ends up
in the same place as before.
--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8
Message 29
| 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: RV Nose Gear SB Question |
None of you would botch a landing on the nose wheel, but if your rusty
friend does with the new fork, on a paved runway, you will have less ground
clearance than the old one. This exact event occurred to a friend of mine in
RV6a. The leg bent 70 degrees right above the wheel pant. The lower front
part of the fork slid on the pavement. No prop strike. He could not tell the
damage occurred until he stopped at the ramp. I can see the advantage of the
new fork on turf, but I am not impressed. I will wait for a better
improvement in the future. No disrespect meant to Vans.
Dale
RV6a 945 hrs
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N67BT@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:47 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: RV-List: RV Nose Gear SB Question
The relative mounting points are the same as the old fork. The fairing
should fit the new fork without modification. The attached photo of my gear
(which was posted earlier by someone else) kind of shows that.
Bob Trumpfheller
RV7A flying for 68 hours
mesawood.com
<<What is the change and/or difficulty with the brackets that attach the
fairings to the axle bolt and the fork? What is needed or difficult to
do?>>
_____
See what's new
Message 30
| 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: RV Nose Gear SB Question |
What are you talking about. I have 1" MORE clearance at the nut area
than before.
How many Gs did your friend pull on that crash to cause that damage?
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Walter
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: Re: RV-List: RV Nose Gear SB Question
None of you would botch a landing on the nose wheel, but if your rusty
friend does with the new fork, on a paved runway, you will have less
ground clearance than the old one. This exact event occurred to a friend
of mine in RV6a. The leg bent 70 degrees right above the wheel pant. The
lower front part of the fork slid on the pavement. No prop strike. He
could not tell the damage occurred until he stopped at the ramp. I can
see the advantage of the new fork on turf, but I am not impressed. I
will wait for a better improvement in the future. No disrespect meant to
Vans.
Dale
RV6a 945 hrs
Do not archive
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N67BT@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:47 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: RV-List: RV Nose Gear SB Question
The relative mounting points are the same as the old fork. The
fairing should fit the new fork without modification. The attached
photo of my gear (which was posted earlier by someone else) kind of
shows that.
Bob Trumpfheller
RV7A flying for 68 hours
mesawood.com
<<What is the change and/or difficulty with the brackets that attach
the fairings to the axle bolt and the fork? What is needed or difficult
to do?>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
See what's new
Message 31
| 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: | GPS : Garmin 396 vs 496 vs Lowrence Airrmap 2000c |
My Garmin 195 has guided me very well from my home base (Denver) to Central America,
Central Canada, both coasts and all the way to Nova Scotia and many, many
points in between. I can upload the aviation data and be current with AP
frequencies etc.
Now I am planning to get an other handheld GPS as a "backup".
I can't decide between the Garmin (396 or 496) or the Lowrence 2000C. I like the
big screen and price of the Lowrence( appr. $ 800.- with the terrain awareness
MMC/SD card) and the extra storage chip capacity.
I do not plan to use the XM WX weather satellite (not cost effective for this VFR
only pilot) pre-loaded automotive data base etc so I am leaning towards the
396. However, this unit costs twice as much as the Lowrence.
I would like to hear from pilots who are familiar with both the Lowrence and the
Garmin. Specifically, has anybody used the Lowrence in Central or South America
or in Alaska? How about customer support (for my 195 unit was always good).
I hope I have not opened up the Chevy vs Ford type debate!
Lothar, RV-6A, 750 hrs
Message 32
| 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: RV Nose Gear SB Question |
Hi Ron,
Yes, I am aware of that. Try to visualize the 70 degree bend in the lower
leg. The nut area is no longer at the bottom, the front corner of the fork
is. The new fork at that area has been recessed compare to the old one,
although my friend ground off a quarter inch of it during taxi. I was not
present. It was a miracle the prop did not strike, must have been close.
Weather was extremely bad, you and I would not have greased the landing that
day either. This reminds me, I sometimes forget to consider unusual weather
when we discuss these issues. Am I alone? PS: I would have been disappointed
if there were no questions on my posting. Thanks ;)
Dale
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron Lee
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: Re: RV-List: RV Nose Gear SB Question
What are you talking about. I have 1" MORE clearance at the nut area than
before.
How many Gs did your friend pull on that crash to cause that damage?
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Walter <mailto:dale1rv6@comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 7:14 PM
Subject: RE: Re: RV-List: RV Nose Gear SB Question
None of you would botch a landing on the nose wheel, but if your rusty
friend does with the new fork, on a paved runway, you will have less ground
clearance than the old one. This exact event occurred to a friend of mine in
RV6a. The leg bent 70 degrees right above the wheel pant. The lower front
part of the fork slid on the pavement. No prop strike. He could not tell the
damage occurred until he stopped at the ramp. I can see the advantage of the
new fork on turf, but I am not impressed. I will wait for a better
improvement in the future. No disrespect meant to Vans.
Dale
RV6a 945 hrs
Do not archive
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of N67BT@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 6:47 PM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: RV-List: RV Nose Gear SB Question
The relative mounting points are the same as the old fork. The fairing
should fit the new fork without modification. The attached photo of my gear
(which was posted earlier by someone else) kind of shows that.
Bob Trumpfheller
RV7A flying for 68 hours
mesawood.com
<<What is the change and/or difficulty with the brackets that attach the
fairings to the axle bolt and the fork? What is needed or difficult to
do?>>
_____
See what's new
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/chref
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Naviga
tor?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
Message 33
| 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 |
|
I am still looking for a nice 6A or 7A with 180 HP and C/S prop. Price is not
an issue if the plane is right. Leather interior desired. Please contact me
by phone (360) 775-0311 or email jimnbev@olypen.com
--------
Jim Cone
3-peat offender
2 RV-6A's & 1 RV-7A
EAA Tech Counselor
EAA Flight Advisor
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146095#146095
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! --
|