Today's Message Index:
----------------------
0. 12:15 AM - Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... (Matt Dralle)
1. 07:49 AM - Flight to Hick Field and a visit to Avery's Tools (smittysrv)
2. 08:21 AM - Re: Tail Wheel Training (Robin Marks)
3. 08:22 AM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (Jeff Dowling)
4. 08:31 AM - RV-A Nose Gear SB (John Fasching)
5. 08:40 AM - Re: Tail Wheel Training (Mike Divan)
6. 08:40 AM - Re: Subject: Nose Gear Leg (Konrad L. Werner)
7. 10:49 AM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (Greg Williams)
8. 12:39 PM - Re: RV-A Nose Gear SB (Ron Lee)
9. 01:06 PM - Re: Tail Wheel Training (Dan)
10. 01:56 PM - Re: Tail Wheel Training (Terry Watson)
11. 02:07 PM - Re: Tail Wheel Training (Konrad L. Werner)
12. 02:29 PM - Re: Tail Wheel Training (Ron Lee)
13. 02:54 PM - Nose Gear Leg (Russ & Marilyn)
14. 04:04 PM - Nose Gear Fork Modification (N67BT@aol.com)
15. 04:45 PM - Re: Nose Gear Leg (Ron Lee)
16. 05:28 PM - Re: Nose Gear Leg (Ron Lee)
17. 06:08 PM - Pullable 60 Amp Breaker (Tim Lewis)
18. 06:43 PM - Re: Re: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not replace (Dale Ensing)
19. 09:43 PM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (Mike Robertson)
20. 10:37 PM - Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? (rv7a)
Message 0
| 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: | Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... |
Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution
today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great
List services!! And pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution
too!
The Contribution Site is fast and easy:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
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: | Flight to Hick Field and a visit to Avery's Tools |
I got my first ride in an RV-7A yesterday. We ate lunch at Rio Concho and ran into
Bob Avery and he invented us to come over to RV Central and His home office
for a tour!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zoO2jkt09ac
--------
Smittys RV-9A
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=146868#146868
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: | Tail Wheel Training |
RC,
I live in San Luis Obispo, CA (SBP) and received my TW
instruction from an excellent pilot (Southwest, Gulfstream G550, Pitts).
The training I received is in his Citabria which was a very good
surrogate for my RV-4. If you want more information or contact
instruction please email me off list.
Robin@mrmoisture.com
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Reginald C.
Smith, Sr.
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
If I'm not mistaken, Jan is in Florida; Yes? I'm located in Lake
Elsinore, California. I'd love nothing more that to receive training
from one with such great references, but I think the commute just might
present a problem. Can you recommend some one local?
Thanks, RC.
________________________________
From: rhdudley1@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
RC
I would also enthusiastically recommend Jan Bussell as an excellent
instructor. I did a combined biennial check and transition to a -6A with
him. My first flight in my -6A was almost a non event.
Richard Dudley
do not archive
rv6n@optonline.net wrote:
I did my tail wheel transition training with Jan Bussell. He owns a 6
and a 6A and is in Okechobee, Fl. I was very happy with Jan and believe
it would have been impossible to have flown my RV6 without his expert
help. The insurance co. wanted 10 hours in make and model and we did my
BFR. Jan's email address is: janjoyce@strato.net
Good luck,
Bob Bales
RV6 flying, 65 hrs
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reginald C. Smith, Sr."
Subject: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
>
> Listers',
>
> Does anyone know of a good place and/or person available to
> help me transition from "Nosedrager" to "Taildrager"? I'm due
> for my BFR and would like to use that training to accomplish it.
> With all the 'Hubbub' about the Nose Wheel Situation, I'd like
> to have that option; since I'm at that point in my 6(A)
> construction. I'm also considering purchasing a Taildrager, so
> suggestions are well received and most welcome. Thanks.
>
> RC.
>
> RV-6(A)? Tail, Wings
> Looking for Fuselage
> Want to FLY NOW
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
> http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
<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
________________________________
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Connect now!
<http://www.windowslive.com/connect.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_newways_1
1
2007>
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: | Re: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
There are many people who will provide this service. Fly to them and
have it done. You have a fast airplane.
do not archive.
shemp
6a 300+
chicago
Brian Meyette wrote:
>
> It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went around & around &
> around on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of altimeter & I
> didnt bring it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO encoder.
> Story starts here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm
>
> I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs
> say its not required
>
> Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc as their only
> avionics. It really comes down to what the local shop understands,
> and if they dont know or understand Experimentals, then they fall
> back on what they do know.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Robertson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM
> *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> *Subject:* RE: RV-List: 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 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!
> <http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
>
> * *
> * *
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> **
> **
> **
> **
> **
> *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List*
> **
> *http://forums.matronics.com*
> * *
> Date: 11/11/2007 12:00 AM
> 12:00 AM
> *
>
>
> *
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: | RV-A Nose Gear SB |
Does the collar, Wd-631-PC from the old gear leg (the 'improved"
version) still work with the new fork?
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: | Re: Tail Wheel Training |
I was wondering where you were. If you are here in SoCal go to Sunrise at KSNA
and check out Ron Rapp. He is a good instructor. He got me flying my 6. He is
active on the SoCal Yahoo group list. I was able to get him to come over to KCCB
to teach me in my 6 after I got signed off by him at KSNA (insurance requirement).
For the record I love my 6. Sure the TW requires more attention at the
end of a long flight but it aint as bad as I thought and I LOVE IT!
Mike Divan
N64GH - RV6,flying :)
SLOW 7 Builder :(
EAA - 577486
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
----- Original Message ----
From: "Reginald C. Smith, Sr." <smirdrv@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 2:25:16 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
.hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;}
If I'm not mistaken, Jan is in Florida; Yes? I'm located
in Lake Elsinore, California. I'd love nothing more that to receive training
from one with such great references, but I think the commute just might present
a problem. Can you recommend some one local?
Thanks, RC.
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:38:22 -0500
From: rhdudley1@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
RC
I would also enthusiastically recommend Jan Bussell as an excellent instructor.
I did a combined biennial check and transition to a -6A with him. My first flight
in my -6A was almost a non event.
Richard Dudley
do not archive
rv6n@optonline.net wrote:
I did my tail wheel transition training with Jan Bussell. He owns a 6 and a
6A and is in Okechobee, Fl. I was very happy with Jan and believe it would have
been impossible to have flown my RV6 without his expert help. The insurance
co. wanted 10 hours in make and model and we did my BFR. Jan's email address
is: janjoyce@strato.net
Good luck,
Bob Bales
RV6 flying, 65 hrs
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reginald C. Smith, Sr."
Subject: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
>
> Listers',
>
> Does anyone know of a good place and/or person available to
> help me transition from "Nosedrager" to "Taildrager"? I'm due
> for my BFR and would like to use that training to accomplish it.
> With all the 'Hubbub' about the Nose Wheel Situation, I'd like
> to have that option; since I'm at that point in my 6(A)
> construction. I'm also considering purchasing a Taildrager, so
> suggestions are well received and most welcome. Thanks.
>
> RC.
>
> RV-6(A)? Tail, Wings
> Looking for Fuselage
> Want to FLY NOW
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
> 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
Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. Connect now!
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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: | Re: Nose Gear Leg |
Ron,
...you are right!
The new fork does not change its position, but the gearleg would need to
be shortened to make sense of the change.
Where was my morning brain? At least someone was paying attention to my
nonsense...
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Lee
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 11:12 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
I believe that the below statement is wrong. The top of the new fork
and the axle holes are
in the same place. If you do not modify the threads on the old gear
leg then you can't
use the new fork.
Either stay with your current setup which many will say is ok OR
rethread the old gear leg
and install the new fork
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Konrad L. Werner
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
Chances are that you may land on the nosegear first, due to its
increased angle of attack stance.
The nosegear is not designed as a landing gear (per Vans), but
rather only a taxi gear.
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Joe & Jan Connell
To: RV-List
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 8:59 AM
Subject: Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
A question:
What if we keep the original nose gear leg and only change the
fork?
What are the implications of having the nose gear 1 inch longer?
I'm not flying my -9A yet but would like to know your thoughts...
Joe Connell
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.
com/Navigator?RV-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
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: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Any recommendations for an experimental friendly avionics shop in the
northwest?
On Nov 18, 2007 8:20 AM, Jeff Dowling <shempdowling2@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> There are many people who will provide this service. Fly to them and
> have it done. You have a fast airplane.
>
> do not archive.
>
> shemp
> 6a 300+
> chicago
>
>
> Brian Meyette wrote:
> >
> > It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went around & around &
> > around on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of altimeter & I
> > didn't bring it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO encoder.
> > Story starts here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm
> >
> > I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs
> > say it's not required
> >
> > Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc as their only
> > avionics. It really comes down to what the local shop understands,
> > and if they don't know or understand Experimentals, then they fall
> > back on what they do know.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike
> Robertson
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM
> > *To:* rv-list@matronics.com
> > *Subject:* RE: RV-List: 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 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!
> > <http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us>
> >
> > * *
> > * *
> > **
> > **
> > **
> > **
> > *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*
> > **
> > **
> > **
> > **
> > **
> > *http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List*
> > **
> > *http://forums.matronics.com*
> > * *
> > Date: 11/11/2007 12:00 AM
> > 12:00 AM
> > *
> >
> >
> > *
>
>
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: RV-A Nose Gear SB |
If that is the part that keeps the nose wheel from turning too
far......YES
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: John Fasching
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:27 AM
Subject: RV-List: RV-A Nose Gear SB
Does the collar, Wd-631-PC from the old gear leg (the 'improved"
version) still work with the new fork?
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: | Re: Tail Wheel Training |
Tail wheel just looks cooler, too
and that's important
Dan
-8
building
Mike Divan <n343fd@yahoo.com> wrote:
I was wondering where you were. If you are here in SoCal go to Sunrise
at KSNA and check out Ron Rapp. He is a good instructor. He got me flying my 6.
He is active on the SoCal Yahoo group list. I was able to get him to come over
to KCCB to teach me in my 6 after I got signed off by him at KSNA (insurance
requirement). For the record I love my 6. Sure the TW requires more attention
at the end of a long flight but it aint as bad as I thought and I LOVE IT!
Mike Divan
N64GH - RV6,flying :)
SLOW 7 Builder :(
EAA - 577486
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE - THANK THE AMERICAN SOLDIER FOR YOURS!
----- Original Message ----
From: "Reginald C. Smith, Sr." <smirdrv@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 2:25:16 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
.hmmessage P { margin:0px;padding:0px;} body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE:10pt;FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma;}
If I'm not mistaken, Jan is in Florida; Yes? I'm located in
Lake Elsinore, California. I'd love nothing more that to receive training from
one with such great references, but I think the commute just might present
a problem. Can you recommend some one local?
Thanks, RC.
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 09:38:22 -0500
From: rhdudley1@bellsouth.net
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
RC
I would also enthusiastically recommend Jan Bussell as an excellent instructor.
I did a combined biennial check and transition to a -6A with him. My first flight
in my -6A was almost a non event.
Richard Dudley
do not archive
rv6n@optonline.net wrote:
I did my tail wheel transition training with Jan Bussell. He owns a 6 and
a 6A and is in Okechobee, Fl. I was very happy with Jan and believe it would
have been impossible to have flown my RV6 without his expert help. The insurance
co. wanted 10 hours in make and model and we did my BFR. Jan's email address
is: janjoyce@strato.net
Good luck,
Bob Bales
RV6 flying, 65 hrs
do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Reginald C. Smith, Sr."
Subject: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
>
> Listers',
>
> Does anyone know of a good place and/or person available to
> help me transition from "Nosedrager" to "Taildrager"? I'm due
> for my BFR and would like to use that training to accomplish it.
> With all the 'Hubbub' about the Nose Wheel Situation, I'd like
> to have that option; since I'm at that point in my 6(A)
> construction. I'm also considering purchasing a Taildrager, so
> suggestions are well received and most welcome. Thanks.
>
> RC.
>
> RV-6(A)? Tail, Wings
> Looking for Fuselage
> Want to FLY NOW
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
> http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us
blank>http://www.matronics.com/contribution
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: | Tail Wheel Training |
I suppose to those who think they look cool trying to see over the nose of
the airplane while dragging their butts down the taxiway, it is important.
To the rest of us, it really just looks a little silly.
Terry
8A
Building
_____
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
Tail wheel just looks cooler, too
and that's important
Dan
-8
building
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: | Re: Tail Wheel Training |
Terry, Terry, Terry,
...you got that all wrong! The cooler TD looks are there to distract
for the ugly looking pilot (I think)...
do not archive / with asbestos at the ready
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Watson
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
I suppose to those who think they look cool trying to see over the
nose of the airplane while dragging their butts down the taxiway, it is
important. To the rest of us, it really just looks a little silly.
Terry
8A
Building
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:04 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
Tail wheel just looks cooler, too
and that's important
Dan
-8
building
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: Tail Wheel Training |
Now now. Some people need these artificial "things" to boost
their ego or make up for other shortcomings. If it helps their
"self-esteem" then let them feel better about themselves.
Ron Lee
Do not archive
----- Original Message -----
From: Terry Watson
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 2:53 PM
Subject: RE: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
I suppose to those who think they look cool trying to see over the
nose of the airplane while dragging their butts down the taxiway, it is
important. To the rest of us, it really just looks a little silly.
Terry
8A
Building
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:04 PM
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: RV-List: Tail Wheel Training
Tail wheel just looks cooler, too
and that's important
Dan
-8
building
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 |
|
Has anybody looked into this? Why do you need to shorten the leg? If the
reason for the modification is to get 1" additional ground clearance and
the new fork provides the proper geometry then why not add a 1" spacer
on top of the new fork. No cutting of the existing gear leg and as an
added benefit you will have an additional inch of prop clearance. I have
a friend that has a new fork assembly on order and I will have an
opportunity to check out this theory myself when we install / remove the
fork assembly.
Russ Keith
RV9A Slow Build
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: | Nose Gear Fork Modification |
I've seen a post or two where folks are contemplating modifying their nose
gear fork by trimming off the bottom and re-welding the joints. If the fork
is re-welded then don't forget that it will have to be heat treated again, as
it was originally. The material is 6061 aluminum.
As an aside, I'm planning to build a whole new fork to accommodate a 5.00 x
5 wheel and tire and will need to find a shop where the welding AND heat
treating can be done.
Bob Trumpfheller
RV7A 70 hrs.
http://mesawood.com
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: | Re: Nose Gear Leg |
Won't work.
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Russ & Marilyn
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
Has anybody looked into this? Why do you need to shorten the leg? If
the reason for the modification is to get 1" additional ground clearance
and the new fork provides the proper geometry then why not add a 1"
spacer on top of the new fork. No cutting of the existing gear leg and
as an added benefit you will have an additional inch of prop clearance.
I have a friend that has a new fork assembly on order and I will have an
opportunity to check out this theory myself when we install / remove the
fork assembly.
Russ Keith
RV9A Slow Build
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: Nose Gear Leg |
Ok, it may work but you will have to drill a hole for the piece that
limits the wheel travel.
Ron Lee
----- Original Message -----
From: Russ & Marilyn
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:53 PM
Subject: RV-List: Nose Gear Leg
Has anybody looked into this? Why do you need to shorten the leg? If
the reason for the modification is to get 1" additional ground clearance
and the new fork provides the proper geometry then why not add a 1"
spacer on top of the new fork. No cutting of the existing gear leg and
as an added benefit you will have an additional inch of prop clearance.
I have a friend that has a new fork assembly on order and I will have an
opportunity to check out this theory myself when we install / remove the
fork assembly.
Russ Keith
RV9A Slow Build
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: | Pullable 60 Amp Breaker |
Over the years I've looked without success for a pullable 60 Amp
breaker. The other day I noticed one in a friend's Glastar (an early
two-weeks-to-taxi pathfinder). I crawled under the panel, jotted down
the part number, and found several sources on the net. The part number
is 413-K14-LN2, made by ETA. I bought one from Pacific Coast Avionics
(part number "ETA-60". They have a 75 Amp version, too.
Use with caution, of course. Pulling the breaker when the alternator is
putting out significant current can ruin the alternator (V = L*di/dt, I
suppose).
--
Tim Lewis -- HEF (Manassas, VA)
RV-6A N47TD -- 900 hrs
RV-10 #40059 under construction
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: Is this quote true, that insurance will void if not |
replace
Scott,
Nose wheel airplanes came into existence when a "design flaw" was
discovered.......the tail wheel! ;<)
Dale
do not archive
"Now they imply a design flaw by making it > "mandatory" to replace. will
this mandatory
> replacement end all noseovers? We'll see.
> I didn't know airplanes with nose wheels even existed until the flurry of
> emails on this topic ;)
> >
> Scott
> http://corbenflyer.tripod.com/
> Gotta Fly or Gonna Die
> Building RV-4 (Super Slow Build Version)
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: | Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
Pacific Coast Avioincs at Aurora Airport just south of Portland, and Greg H
oward at Aero Maintenance at Pearson Field in Vancouver, WA are two good sh
ops that I know of. I know there are also some around the Seattle area but
I don't know the names.
Mike Robertson
Das Fed
list@matronics.comSubject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimete
r - Good for IFR?Any recommendations for an experimental friendly avionics
shop in the northwest?
On Nov 18, 2007 8:20 AM, Jeff Dowling <shempdowling2@earthlink.net > wrote:
here are many people who will provide this service. Fly to them andhave it
done. You have a fast airplane.do not archive.shemp6a 300+chicago
Brian Meyette wrote:>> It seems to depend on the avionics shop. I went ar
ound & around &> around on this subject (just for encoder, no mention of al
timeter & I> didn't bring it up) and finally had to give up & buy a TSO enc
oder. > Story starts here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsSep04.htm
>> I even had the Portland (ME) FSDO tell me it was required. EAA docs >
say it's not required>> Lots of people fly IFR with Blue Mountain, GRT, etc
as their only> avionics. It really comes down to what the local shop unde
rstands,> and if they don't know or understand Experimentals, then they fal
l > back on what they do know.>>>>>> --------------------------------------
---------------------------------->> *From:* owner-rv-list-server@matronics
.com> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Mike Rober
tson> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 14, 2007 10:53 AM > *To:* rv-list@matroni
cs.com> *Subject:* RE: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good
> for IFR?>>>
> Not bad. You are exactly correct right up to the last sentence. Even> f
or 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. Ou
tside of FAR 91, which calls for a TSO for the ELT and that> the Transponde
r must be shown to meet a TSO standard during testing, > the FARs that cove
rs ALL instruments installed in aircraft is FAR> Parts 23 through 29, and t
hey do NOT mention TSO's at all for> instruments. And we all know that FAR
s 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 re
pair stations don't buy this but if they were forced to> look through the F
AR'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 requirem
ent 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 > Standards that I have fought, and proven.>>
Mike Robertson> Das Fed>> P.S. For 121 and 135 aircraft they are held to o
nly 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 overhau
led unit from one of the> > reputable instrument shops like Century Instrum
ents, for about $375.> > For certification the requirements are in Part 43,
Appendix E. Again, no > > mention of TSO.> > In general, TSO is only requi
red for Part 135 and 121.> >> > darnpilot@aol.com wrote:> > > Thanks for th
e replies. My shop is actually pretty good (and the only > > > one in town)
. I understand, somewhat, that they are caught between> > > the FAA and the
ir 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 tow
n> > > avionics shop for this simple requirement. > > >> > > I'm going to c
ontact the EAA and get them on the ass of the local FSDO> > > and try to ed
ucate 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 > f
or 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. Ju
st go> > > to an avionics shop and tell them you need a transponder and pit
ot > > > static check. If they won't do it because you have a big> > > "exp
erimental" sticker on your plane, then you probably won't want to> > > do b
usiness 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 1
3, 2007 4:40:15 PM > > > Subject: Re: RV-List: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO A
ltimeter - 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@y
ahoo.com
> > > <mailto:pbesing@yahoo.com>> wrote:> > >> > > Good luck with that. As
soon as they find out it's "Experimental" > > > some places are sent slammi
ng 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 exper
imentals, 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 questio
n, non-TSO is OK for experimental aircraft. I> > > would consider making th
e shop show you where it says that a TSO > > > is required to pass the stat
ic-system test.> > >> > > I have 2 non-TSO altimiters (Rockymountain and Bl
uemountain) and> > > they both pass every time. Both are easy to calibrate
down to > > > less than 10' error at any altitude. - i.e. they both outperf
orm> > > any TSO steam guage. But that is beside the point.> > >> > > If yo
u google you can find a copy of the instructions for > > > performing the s
tatic system test.> > >> > > Dave Leonard> > >> > > On Nov 13, 2007 7:18 AM
, <darnpilot@aol.com
> > > <mailto:darnpilot@aol.com>> wrote:> > >> > > Help.> > >> > > My Glasa
ir III needs its two year IFR certification, i.e.,> > > pitot/static, altim
eter, & transponder check. The altimeter> > > (I just found out) is non-TSO
'd. Does anyone have the Regs> > > and/or clarification that says this is l
egal for IFR in an > > > experimental aircraft? My local avionics shop says
no, and> > > will not do the test and certification.> > >> > > Thank you i
n 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/ >> > > ht
tp://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.co
m/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>>> *
*> * *> **> **> ** > **> *http://www.matronics.com/contribution*> **> **>
**> **> **> * http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List*> **> *http://foru
ms.matronics.com*
> * *> Date: 11/11/2007 12:00 AM
_________________________________________________________________
Share life as it happens with the new Windows Live.Download today it's FREE
!
http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_Wave2_sharelife_1120
07
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: Needed: Answer; Is Non-TSO Altimeter - Good for IFR? |
at AWO
http://cannonavionics.com/experimentals.html (360-435-0900)
at BFI
https://www.americanavionics.com/ (800-518-5858)
Joe E @ BFI
N633Z 496 hours
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007, Greg Williams wrote:
> Any recommendations for an experimental friendly avionics shop in the
> northwest?
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! --
|