 |
Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 9:49 am Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
 |
|
1/8/2007
Hello Old Bob, You wrote: "I am definitely stepping out from my area of
expertise here, but is a TSO required for operations of a home built
aircraft?"
I believe that a narrow legalistic response to your question is "No, because
there are no published certification standards that ABEA's (Amateur Built
Experimental Aircraft) are required to meet."
But in a real world practical sense there are some operations that ABEA's
participate in that require them to interface with other aircraft or
facilities and those operations require compatibility with published
standards established for those other entities.
Compatibility could conceivably be achieved by individually creating
equipment equivalent to a published standard, but the practicality of such
creation is, in most cases, very remote.**
In the postings copied below the operation at issue is GPS requirements for
IFR operations. Here is just one extract (others may be found) from chapter
1-1-19 in the current edition of the AIM:
"g. Equipment and Database Requirements
1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems
requires that:
(a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in
class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and"
I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe that an
ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being called to
account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or improper
performance on his part would have a very difficult time convincing the
authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be entirely acceptable
to them.
So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his
aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger him or
others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that goal then his
choice should be clear to him.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
**PS: One notable exception is in the arena of external lighting where some
innovative LED equipment may, in fact, be superior to the TSO requirements.
But proving that superiority and getting an initial airworthiness inspector
of an ABEA to accept the equipment (if he chooses to make it an issue) may
be a problem.
----------------------- COPIED POSTINGS FOLLOW -----------------
Time: 06:53:45 AM PST US
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Good Morning Kevin,
I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is a TSO
required for operations of a home built aircraft?
It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft.
The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight appears
to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator determines that the
equipment meets the standards required for IFR flight, the stuff should be
acceptable.
What do you feel is required?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
TSOs have been issued.
Kevin Horton
| | - The Matronics Avionics-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
bakerocb
Joined: 15 Jan 2006
Posts: 727
Location: FAIRFAX VA
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 11:41 am Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
|
|
1/9/2007
Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no
law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a country!?
The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when consideration of fines
begin, it is immaterial."
This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we have
come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real soon.
We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have non
regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.) to help
interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those same
bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB judge
charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation because you
violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and certificate action
is not immaterial.
2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several
years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a TSOed
unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in the
wind."
The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a pilot
knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that the AIM
said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or violation
occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to punishment for such a
violation of the AIM. This is true.
3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the
price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing, why
wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?"
If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only be
performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking a risk.
His risk could result in:
a) No harm.
b) Embarrassment.
c) A fine.
d) Loss of certificate
e) Injury to self or others.
f) Death of self or others.
g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding community.
Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________
Time: 10:53:58 AM PST US
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
| Quote: | I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe
that an ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being
called to account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or
improper performance on his part would have a very difficult time
convincing the authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be
entirely acceptable to them.
|
Could you please stand back while I prepare to insert my foot in my
mouth, but...
That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial. That just quacks to
much like "ex post facto" law to not be "ex post facto" law. If the
non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in
the wind.
| Quote: | So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his
aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger
him or others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that
goal then his choice should be clear to him.
|
If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?
Ernest Christley
| | - The Matronics Avionics-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: ABEA and TSO's |
|
|
My 2 cents ( well maybe less) in support of Bob's arguments.
Liability culpability is generally based on the principle that a person may
be held liable if he/she does not do what a reasonable and PRUDENT person
would do in similar circumstances.
Ernest, based on your arguments, you are a reasonable person. Bob's
arguments are directed toward the PRUDENT part of the equation. If one
follows your position, you could, and would likely (with a respectable
offensive attorney), be found to be imprudent is you did not do the best
that you could to prevent/mitigate the incident for which you are being
tried. The result is that you would be guilty regardless of your "reason".
FWIW,
Doug Windhorn
---
| | - The Matronics Avionics-List Email Forum - | | | Use the List Feature Navigator to browse the many List utilities available such as the Email Subscriptions page, Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ, Photoshare, and much more:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List |
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
Get Email Distribution Too!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
