Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:48 AM - encoder approval ()
2. 08:10 AM - encoder approval ()
3. 08:39 AM - Re: encoder approval (Mike Ferrer)
4. 06:15 PM - encoder approval ()
5. 06:40 PM - Re: encoder approval (John Grosse)
6. 07:20 PM - OBAM vs. ABEA ()
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: | encoder approval |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/14/2006
Responding to an email and posting by Michael Hinchcliff
Hello Michael, Thanks for your response and your kind words. I am not happy
dabbling in the arena of semantics and legalese, but it appears that the
regulations and the FAA's interpretation of the regulations force us in that
direction.
1) You wrote: "Everything else aside, 91.217 (c) does not say the equipment
must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO standards."
Correct.
2) You wrote: "TSO certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is."
Meeting all of the TSO standards for an altitude encoder is not mandatory or
required.
In my opinion there are three ways to have legal automatic pressure altitude
reporting equipment in an aircraft:
A) Go through the process of obtaining FAA TSO compliant approval for the
manufacturing process, testing, performance, and all related documentation
of your equipment. You will then be authorized to mark the equipment as
meeting the requirements of TSO-C88a. By virtue of this marking your
equipment is presumed to meet the requirement of 91.217 9(c) for equipment
that meets the minimum performance standards in TSO-C88a.
B) Design, build, and test your equipment. Then request a deviation from the
TSO standards from the FAA in accordance with FAR 21.609. See the TSO to
read what those
standards are:
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/7F3CE81AFC742A4B86256DC70067B087?OpenDocument
More recent editions of TSO's include an FAA policy statement like this that
head you in the deviation direction:
"Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of
compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these
provisions, show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of
safety. Apply for a deviation under 14 CFR 21.609."
MPS means Minimum Performance Standards. Note that there is a lot more to a
TSO than just the minimum performance standards.
FAR 21.609 reads as follows: "Approval for deviation.
(a) Each manufacturer who requests approval to deviate from any performance
standard of a TSO shall show that the standards from which a deviation is
requested are compensated for by factors or design features providing an
equivalent level of safety.
(b) The request for approval to deviate, together with all pertinent data,
must be submitted to the Manager of the Aircraft Certification Office for
the geographic area in which the manufacturer is located. If the article is
manufactured in another country, the request for approval to deviate,
together with all pertinent data, must be submitted through the civil
aviation authority in that country to the FAA."
C) Design, build, test, and sell equipment that you are confident meets the
testing requirements of 91.217 (b) when installed in an aircraft. What are
the intended testing requirements of 91.217 (b)? That is the issue at hand.
I think that meeting the appropriate testing requirements of FAR Part 43
Appendicies E and F fulfills the intent of 91.217 (b). HQ FAA currently says
not so. I hope to change that position.
Complicating the situation is the existence of hundreds of non TSO'd
encoders already in satisfactory use for years and more being manufactured,
sold to, and installed by amateur builders in their aircraft.
3) You wrote: "Part (b) just references how the equipment is to be tested
and does not necessarily prove compliance with the required TSO."
Agreed -- see paragraph 2 C above.
4) You wrote: "My simpleton answer would be to either A.) formally prove the
non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide the paperwork that goes
with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by purchasing equipment that's
already certified as meeting the standard and
start flying.
Two questions:
aa) If such a policy as A.) above had been in effect for the last 10 years
what would be
the current status of EFIS development in our community?
bb) How does B.) above deal with all the non TSO'd equipment already
installed and flying,
being installed, and being manufactured?
5) You wrote: "Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the
non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the
equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp."
See 2) B) above.
You wrote: " Have you barked up that tree yet?"
No. To date I am only pursuing a more rational interpretation of FAR 91.217
(b) by HQ FAA.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<<OC, thanks for your objective response to my message. I appreciate
healthy
debate in that it improves my understanding of the issues, in this case FAR
91.217. I now see what you are saying. Everything else aside, 91.217 (c)
does not say the equipment must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO
standards. My question to the non-TSO'd encoder community is this: How do
you prove your equipment meets the required TSO standards? TSO
certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is. Part (b) just
references how the equipment is to be tested and does not necessarily prove
compliance with the required TSO. My simpleton answer would be to either
A.) formally prove the non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide
the paperwork that goes with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by
purchasing equipment that's already certified as meeting the standard and
start flying. Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the
non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the
equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp. Have you
barked up that tree yet? Michael H.>>
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: | encoder approval |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/15/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Doug
Windhorn"
Hello Doug,
1) You wrote: "Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper
equipment and knew how
to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane."
The ONLY privileges that a Repairman's Certificate for a specific amateur
built experimental aircraft grants are for the holder of that certificate to
perform and sign off the condition inspection for that aircraft that is
required every 12 calendar months.
2) If you really want to squeeze through a transponder testing loophole
yourself take a look at FAR 91.413(c) (3). I don't recommend it.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<<AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Doug Windhorn"
<N1DeltaWhiskey@comcast.net>
Kevin,
Thought of that after Brian's reply and reading the FAR 43 App F.
Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper equipment and knew how
to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane. Doug>>
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: encoder approval |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: "Mike Ferrer" <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
>From the EAA Website:
Q. Can a builder with a repairman certificate for the aircraft he built
perform his own altimeter or transponder certifications?
A. No. Although the FAR's do authorize the "manufacturer" of the aircraft to
conduct the tests, the builder of an amateur-built aircraft does not meet
the FAA's definition of a manufacturer. The FAA, in Order 8130.2, defines a
manufacturer as a Production Approval Holder (PAH). Some examples of a PAH
would be the holder of a Production Certificate (PC), a Parts Manufacturing
Authority (PMA), and Technical Standards Order Authorization (TSOA).
According to the FAA, an amateur builder does not fit this definition and,
therefore cannot perform the transponder and pitot/static tests on his/her
homebuilt.
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: | encoder approval |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/15/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd
Hello Brian,
1) You wrote: "ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out."
Please do not tear your hair out or rend your garments on my behalf. Life is
too short for that.
2) At 10:36 AM EST on 8/10/2006 I wrote: "I wanted to avoid much
controversial and distracting communications pending the, hopefully
favorable, eventual ruling by FAA on this subject."
At 01:23:44 PM PST on 8/14/2006 You wrote: "Now, if you don't cease and
desist trying to confuse this issue, I am going to come over there and beat
your hands into a bloody pulp with
a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-)"
Sigh
3) You wrote: "YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR
TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER
CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY.
Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads:.....skip.....
Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test
performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute
pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude
(mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of
your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is
indicated on your altimeter.
The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it
is working."
It is more than a bit ironic that you and I are complete agreement on this
point. The problem lies in the fact that HQ FAA (and the EAA) currently do
not agree with you and me. Also neither did the avionics shop and FSDO that
Brian Meyette was dealing with (see his posting). Is there trouble brewing
in River City?
4) You wrote: "OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are
insisting on
muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were."
You will recall that this thread was started by Skip Simpson who posted: "Is
the Rocky Mountain encoder approved for certificated aircraft, the factory
says that "it conforms to c88a", is that enough, or is there more needed.
Any opinions on the unit. Thanks, Skip Simpson"
I think that it would have been rude of me, and counter to the precepts of
this list, to ignore his request for information / help. I think that it
would have been unfair of me to give him just my opinion alone when I knew
the issue was unresolved. So I responded with the facts as they existed at
that time. Subsequently I have responded to all questions that were posed
directly to me as factually as possible. It would have been rude of me if I
had ignored those postings. If I have left anyone's water muddied or
anyone's cake pissed upon I apologize.
5) You wrote: "This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA.
You get
some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you."
I asked FAA HQ for clarification of 91.217 (b) because of a doubtful encoder
situation that arose between a local builder who installed an EFIS, his FAA
inspector, another individual at the local FSDO, and the manufacturer of the
EFIS. I would have preferred to have not gotten a response from "some boob
who hasn't got a clue" on my first try, but I wasn't offered that option. So
I am trying again.
6) You wrote: "The key point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs
no interpretation."
Again, I agree, and if this is indeed the case then sooner or later we will
find some rational person at FAA HQ who agrees with your statement and the
issue will be resolved properly. In the meantime I hope that we can deal
with facts and not emotion, adamant statements of our opinions, or name
calling that might turn out to be counter productive.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge
<<AeroElectric-List message posted by: Brian Lloyd <brian-yak@lloyd.com>
On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:19 PM, <bakerocb@cox.net> wrote:
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
>
> 8/14/2006
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by
> Brian Lloyd
>
> Hello Brian, Thanks for your input.
>
> You wrote in part: "But you can use any encoder you want to. It
> doesn't have to be TSO'd.
> You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy
> yourself."
>
> I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR
> 91.217 is relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as
> called for in 91.217 (c) then the installation must pass the tests
> required by FAR 91.217 (b).
ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out.
OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are insisting on
muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were.
YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR
TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER
CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY.
Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads:
(b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to
transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the
altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that
altimeter referenced to
29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum
operating altitude of the aircraft;
Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test
performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute
pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude
(mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of
your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is
indicated on your altimeter.
The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it
is working.
> Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has
> described a testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that
> is unreasonable. See their response to my letter in a previous
> posting.
This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA. You get
some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you. The key
point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs no interpretation.
The transponder certification test is where you test and calibrate
your encoder to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125' of
the indicated or calibrated data of the altimeter normally used to
maintain flight attitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92"Hg
for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the
aircraft.
Notice just how similar my words are to 91.217(b)?
Now, if you don't cease and desist trying to confuse this issue, I am
going to come over there and beat your hands into a bloody pulp with
a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-)
(BTW, if you use the same pressure sensor to generate your altitude
readout AND drive your transponder, the altitude sent by the
transponder absolutely MUST be the same indicated since they are both
the same data.) Brian Lloyd>>
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: encoder approval |
--> Avionics-List message posted by: John Grosse <grosseair@comcast.net>
Wow! You guys are getting way too intense about this whole thing!
Lighten up and fly.
By now we should all realize that you can do any thing you want until it
causes a problem. Then you'll find out that if you did the wrong thing
you're violated, and your insurance may no longer cover you. But, hey,
I've known of guys who flew for more than 20 years without a license or
insurance. So just shut up and fly.
John Grosse
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 |
|
--> Avionics-List message posted by: <bakerocb@cox.net>
8/15/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L.
Nuckolls, III"
Hello Bob, I appear to aroused and aggravated two of our most senior gurus
on this list (you and Brian) at the same time -- I feel like I have hit the
quinella.
You wrote: "Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind
"OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur"
while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption.
I fully appreciate, understand, and accept your motivation for eschewing the
two dread words, "experimental" and "amateur", under certain circumstances.
I have the following comments:
A) When we call the same thing by two different names or two different
things by the same name sooner or later we sow confusion.
B) Many people, even in our community, do not know that OBAM stands for
Owner Built And Maintained. Maybe a spell out of the acronym the first time
it is used in a document would help.
B) People who see the term OBAM over and over begin to think that it is
indeed only the Owner or only the Builder who may Maintain the aircraft.
This is misleading and needs to be clarified every once in a while, in fact
just recently on this list.
C) Use of the term OBAM causes people tend to think that every aircraft in
our community must have been Built by the current Owner. But ownership by
individuals subsequent to the builder is very common in our community. There
are some significant issues involved with subsequent ownership.
D) When we are attempting to clarify some regulatory point among ourselves
and start to use terms like "registration", "certification",
"airworthiness", "special", "standard", "category", "Operating Limitations",
and "instrument and equipment requirements", it is helpful if we all use the
same terms to mean the same thing and that these are the terms also found in
the regulations.
These are just some of the reasons that I use the term ABEA (Amateur Built
Experimental Aircraft) from time to time when communicating within the
community. The next time that I am in a courtroom I'll fuzzy it up a bit.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<< AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
<nuckollsr@cox.net>
>
>2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*"
>
>As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described
>above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built
>experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built
>Experimental Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it
>has not received wide spread use.
Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind
"OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur"
while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption.
The average Joe on the street thinks getting into any little airplane
is foolhardy. Pasting an "experimental" label on the "amateur" built
machine only serves to elevate the listener/reader's level of
tension/apprehension.
Back when I gave depositions in accident investigations and
analysis we took pains to avoid words like "impact", "crash",
"shattered", etc in favor of equally accurate but less exciting words
like "contact", "event", "failed", etc. When attempting to
explain the finer details of an accident where 90% of the energy
is expended in the first few hundred milliseconds of an event,
it's challenging but useful to downplay the violence while
focusing on the science.
It's easier to keep the listener's attention to facts and
logic if you avoid the kind of words one hears in abundance
on the 6 o-clock news. It worked well in the courtroom and
many of our aviation-ignorant fellow citizens are considered
ideal jury material.
Further, in many venues the owner of a TC aircraft has accomplished
some pretty heavy maintenance and repairs albeit under the watchful
eye of a "certified" individual who ultimately accepts responsibility
for the work.
Bob . . .>>
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! --
|