tso altimeter

[Phoenixmotoman]

I want to install a Winter 4FGH 40 altimeter with an EASA Form 1
certificate in my S-LSA motorglider with the Becker TSO'd
transponder. My avionics shop says that the altimeter must be TSO'd
as well. Can anyone cite FAA regulations about this issue? Any
information would be welcome.

[Tim Mara]

the Winter 4FGH40 is TSO'd, that's what the EASA Form one is and says
so.....certifed the same as and accepted here in the USA the same as they
accept our approvals
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com



"Phoenixmotoman" > wrote in message
...
>I want to install a Winter 4FGH 40 altimeter with an EASA Form 1
> certificate in my S-LSA motorglider with the Becker TSO'd
> transponder. My avionics shop says that the altimeter must be TSO'd
> as well. Can anyone cite FAA regulations about this issue? Any
> information would be welcome.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Dec 6, 12:34*pm, Phoenixmotoman > wrote:
> I want to install a Winter 4FGH 40 altimeter with an EASA Form 1
> certificate in my S-LSA motorglider with the Becker TSO'd
> transponder. *My avionics shop says that the altimeter must be TSO'd
> as well. *Can anyone cite FAA regulations about this issue? *Any
> information would be welcome.

Since they are saying this did you ask them why?

Your avionics shop may be mixing up requirements in 14CFR 91.411 for
IFR aircraft that require detailed altimeter testing and either you
have to do that testing or you can use a TSO'ed altimeter to meet the
same requirement. But that 14CFR 91.411 requirement overall should not
apply to you unless you are flying IFR...

If this is an experiential aircraft then you the altimeter
requirements should be pretty simple (I'd be surprised if anything
there would ever require a TSOed altimeter - you tell me). Adding a
transponder does not change things too much. Transponder requirements
are outlined in 14CFR 91.215 (which says the transponder must meet
certain requirements as outlined in one of several possible TSOs)
nothing about altimeters there. And 14CFR 91.413 requires altimeter
systems tests outlined in paragraph (c) of Part 43 Appendix E. And
that little paragraph is just about the only altimeter related things
with transponders most of us ever need to worry about... here it is...

"(c) Automatic Pressure Altitude Reporting Equipment and ATC
Transponder System Integration Test. The test must be conducted by an
appropriately rated person under the conditions specified in paragraph
(a). Measure the automatic pressure altitude at the output of the
installed ATC transponder when interrogated on Mode C at a sufficient
number of test points to ensure that the altitude reporting equipment,
altimeters, and ATC transponders perform their intended functions as
installed in the aircraft. The difference between the automatic
reporting output and the altitude displayed at the altimeter shall not
exceed 125 feet."

---

Are you talking about a new Mode C transponder or existing one? If a
new one why install a Becker Mode C when the Trig TT21 Mode S is
available? Seriously, bad choice, if it is new return it and swap it
for a Trig TT21. The T21 uses less power, is more compact, easier to
install and more importantly provides a future to ADS-B 1090ES data-
out -- something nice for people adopting a PowerFLARM as it lets
other PowerFLARM receivers see you directly over long distances (much
longer then FLARM-FLARM) and will enable the PowerFLARM to provide ADS-
B capabilities like ADS-R and TIS-B (which you won't reliably receive
unless you have an ADS-B transmitter).

Darryl

[John Smith]

Am 06.12.10 22:23, schrieb Tim Mara:
> the Winter 4FGH40 is TSO'd, that's what the EASA Form one is and says
> so.....

Just to nitpick: EASA Form 1 is just what it's called: a form. The form
per se doesn't mean an instrument is TSOed, it can as well be written on
the form that it isn't. However, in practice, you're correct: An
instrument usually only comes with a Form 1 when it's TSOed.

EASA Form 1 is the equivalent of FAA Form 8130-3. The USA and EASA
country mutually acknowledge each other's form.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 6, 2:23*pm, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> the Winter 4FGH40 is TSO'd, that's what the EASA Form one is and says
> so.....certifed the same as and accepted here in the USA the same as they
> accept our approvals


The TSO for altimeter, pressure actuated, sensitive type, is C10b. I
have a Winter 4FGH40 in my sailplane . It was recently returned from
Winter after overhaul with an EASA Form 1. Nowhere on that form, or
in any Winter spec, can I find a statement that the Winter 4FGH40
complies with TSO C10b.

Tim, please give me a reference to a Winter spec that claims TSO C10b
compliance.

My form 1 in this case merely certifies that the work done (overhaul)
was accomplished in accordance with FAR-145 and the work item is
satisfactory for release to service.

As to the OP's question - I know of no requirement for your altimeter
to be TSO compliant. Get your avionics shop to show the regulation,
and if they can't take your work somewhere else.

Andy

[Rex]

I would look into the requirements for LSA aircraft. I do not believe
LSA aircraftt are required to have TSO'd equipment of any type. ALso
many aircraft manufacturers list approved equipment. Most of the
European manufacturers include the Becker and Winter equipment. This
is considered approval data.
Rex

[John Smith]

Am 07.12.10 03:07, schrieb Andy:
> The TSO for altimeter, pressure actuated, sensitive type, is C10b. I
> have a Winter 4FGH40 in my sailplane . It was recently returned from
> Winter after overhaul with an EASA Form 1. Nowhere on that form, or
> in any Winter spec, can I find a statement that the Winter 4FGH40
> complies with TSO C10b.

> My form 1 in this case merely certifies that the work done (overhaul)
> was accomplished in accordance with FAR-145 and the work item is
> satisfactory for release to service.

Which is how the form 1 works. If a manufactorer sells a new instrument
with a form 1, then the TSO norm to which the instrument complies (if
any) is written to that form. If you get an instrument overhauled, then
that form 1 says that is has been overhauled according to the
regulations by a repair shop with a license (if so), and nothing more.
The new form 1 doesn't replace the older.

Winter sells both TSOed and not TSOed altimeteres. As you can guess,
they differ heavily in price (you get about three non-TSOed for one
TSOed). Looking at the price, the 4FGH40 seems to be TSOed. But if you
want to know, why don't you just send a mail to Winter and ask? Winter
tends to be pretty responsive, at least so has been my experience.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 6, 7:07*pm, Andy > wrote:

> My form 1 in this case merely certifies that the work done (overhaul)
> was accomplished in accordance with FAR-145 and the work item is
> satisfactory for release to service.

Sorry, typing error, it certifies JAR-145 not FAR-145 compliance.

[Mike Schumann]

On 12/7/2010 5:05 AM, John Smith wrote:
> Am 07.12.10 03:07, schrieb Andy:
>> The TSO for altimeter, pressure actuated, sensitive type, is C10b. I
>> have a Winter 4FGH40 in my sailplane . It was recently returned from
>> Winter after overhaul with an EASA Form 1. Nowhere on that form, or
>> in any Winter spec, can I find a statement that the Winter 4FGH40
>> complies with TSO C10b.
>
>> My form 1 in this case merely certifies that the work done (overhaul)
>> was accomplished in accordance with FAR-145 and the work item is
>> satisfactory for release to service.
>
> Which is how the form 1 works. If a manufactorer sells a new instrument
> with a form 1, then the TSO norm to which the instrument complies (if
> any) is written to that form. If you get an instrument overhauled, then
> that form 1 says that is has been overhauled according to the
> regulations by a repair shop with a license (if so), and nothing more.
> The new form 1 doesn't replace the older.
>
> Winter sells both TSOed and not TSOed altimeteres. As you can guess,
> they differ heavily in price (you get about three non-TSOed for one
> TSOed). Looking at the price, the 4FGH40 seems to be TSOed. But if you
> want to know, why don't you just send a mail to Winter and ask? Winter
> tends to be pretty responsive, at least so has been my experience.

Are there any physical differences between the TSOed and non-TSOed
versions, or are you just paying extra for the paperwork?

--
Mike Schumann

[Tim Mara]

If it is for use with a Transponder then the TSO is a
requirement....Transponders are TSO (only) installations and the requirement
for the TSO also is in connection with the altimeter....providing it is for
altitude reporting transponders (mode C)
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com

"Rex" > wrote in message
...
>I would look into the requirements for LSA aircraft. I do not believe
> LSA aircraftt are required to have TSO'd equipment of any type. ALso
> many aircraft manufacturers list approved equipment. Most of the
> European manufacturers include the Becker and Winter equipment. This
> is considered approval data.
> Rex
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature database 5682 (20101207) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5682 (20101207) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

[Darryl Ramm]

On Dec 7, 9:31*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
> If it is for use with a Transponder then the TSO is a
> requirement....Transponders are TSO (only) installations and the requirement
> for the TSO also is in connection with the altimeter....providing it is for
> altitude reporting transponders (mode C)
> tim
> Please visit the Wings & Wheels website

I've already pojnted to the FARs ti clarify both main points but you
seem to be disagreeing so can you point to a FAR to substantiate
either claim here? So again/in more detail...

Transponders themselves are strictly a "meets the performance and
environmental requirements of TSO blah" see 14CFR 91.215 so it is
technically up to the person signing off the installation to determine
this. Which has allowed transponders without TSO approval to be
installed. But most shops will say that will only install a
Transponder with TSO approval. But this us really not relevant to the
original question.

For non-IFR aircraft I do not believe adding a transponder requires
the altimeter to be TSOed. See my earlier post and the FARs quoted
there.

If you want to disagree please quote the relevant FARs.

Darryl

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 7, 10:56*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Dec 7, 9:31*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>
> > If it is for use with a Transponder then the TSO is a
> > requirement....Transponders are TSO (only) installations and the requirement
> > for the TSO also is in connection with the altimeter....providing it is for
> > altitude reporting transponders (mode C)
> > tim
> > Please visit the Wings & Wheels website
>
> I've already pojnted to the FARs ti clarify both main points but you
> seem to be disagreeing so can you point to a FAR to substantiate
> either claim here? So again/in more detail...
>
> Transponders themselves are strictly a "meets the performance and
> environmental requirements of TSO blah" see 14CFR 91.215 so it is
> technically up to the person signing off the installation to determine
> this. Which has allowed transponders without TSO approval to be
> installed. But most shops will say that will only install a
> Transponder with TSO approval. But this us really not relevant to the
> original question.
>
> For non-IFR aircraft I do not believe adding a transponder requires
> the altimeter to be TSOed. See my earlier post and the FARs quoted
> there.
>
> If you want to disagree please quote the relevant FARs.
>
> Darryl

I agree that installation of a transponder implies no requirement for
a TSO compliant altimeter. It does, however, seem to impose a
requirement for a TSO compliant altitude encoder or a TSO complaint
altimeter with an encoder output. Maybe that's where the confusion
comes from. Of course the TSO the encoder is required to comply with
is C88a not C10b.


So Tim now seems to be on the hook for two things:

1. The regulatory requirement for a TSO compliant altimeter and
2. Substantiation that the Winter 4FGH40 is TSO compliant.

As the owner of an 4FGH40 who is considering installing a transponder
this winter I look forward to that information with interest.

Andy

[Darryl Ramm]

On Dec 7, 9:56*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Dec 7, 9:31*am, "Tim Mara" > wrote:
>
> > If it is for use with a Transponder then the TSO is a
> > requirement....Transponders are TSO (only) installations and the requirement
> > for the TSO also is in connection with the altimeter....providing it is for
> > altitude reporting transponders (mode C)
> > tim
> > Please visit the Wings & Wheels website
>
> I've already pojnted to the FARs ti clarify both main points but you
> seem to be disagreeing so can you point to a FAR to substantiate
> either claim here? So again/in more detail...
>
> Transponders themselves are strictly a "meets the performance and
> environmental requirements of TSO blah" see 14CFR 91.215 so it is
> technically up to the person signing off the installation to determine
> this. Which has allowed transponders without TSO approval to be
> installed. But most shops will say that will only install a
> Transponder with TSO approval. But this us really not relevant to the
> original question.
>
> For non-IFR aircraft I do not believe adding a transponder requires
> the altimeter to be TSOed. See my earlier post and the FARs quoted
> there.
>
> If you want to disagree please quote the relevant FARs.
>
> Darryl

Bzzzttt I've got to shoot myself here for getting missing the critical
regulation....

14CFR §91.217 Data correspondence between automatically reported
pressure altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference.

(a) No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting
equipment associated with a radar beacon transponder—
....
(3) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the
standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively.

---

But again its a "meet the standards of" wording, so that leaves some
wiggle room, but up to the person signing off the install. IFR
aircraft get linked in with stronger worded requirements via 91.411
that an allow an actual TSO approval and date of manufacture to used
instead of an IFR altimeter test--thats the only thing stronger than
"meet the standards of" wording I can find. But again many shops will
take that to mean the product must be manufactured under an actual TSO
approval.


Darryl

[jcarlyle]

Andy,

Maybe I can help.

Winter uses two different nomenclatures. The 4 FGH 40 altimeter is
also known as the 4555 (download the Winter Bordgerate catalog, and
you'll see). You can see on the Products page that the 4555 has an
EASA Form One. Here's the tricky bit - I have the older JAA Form One,
and on it under remarks it says the 4555 has TS 10.220/48, which is
equivalent to TSO C10b.

For what it's worth, I have a transponder and the shop was happy with
my 4 FGH 40 during the data equivalence checks.

-John


On Dec 7, 1:40 pm, Andy > wrote:
> 2. Substantiation that the Winter 4FGH40 is TSO compliant.
>
> As the owner of an 4FGH40 who is considering installing a transponder
> this winter I look forward to that information with interest.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 7, 12:41*pm, jcarlyle > wrote:
> Here's the tricky bit - I have the older JAA Form One,
> and on it under remarks it says the 4555 has TS 10.220/48, which is
> equivalent to TSO C10b.

My research indicates that the European equivalent of TSO C10b is ETSO-
C10b. I have searched for "TS 10.220/48" but can't find it anywhere.
Can you tell us how you know TS 10.220/48 is equivalent to TSO C10b.
Not saying it isn't, but would like to have a reference.

thanks,

Andy

[John Smith]

Andy wrote:
> Can you tell us how you know TS 10.220/48 is equivalent to TSO C10b.

According to the DG 1000 "Wartungshandbuch" TS 10.220/48 is not the TSO
number, but the "Kennblatt number" of the 4 FGH 40, i.e. the instrument
specifications sheet number (I don't know the correct English name of
that thing). The TSO number is written on that sheet (among other things).

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 7, 3:12*pm, John Smith > wrote:

>The TSO number is written on that sheet (among other things).

Are you saying you have looked at TS 10.220/48 and that it specifies
compliance with ETSO-C10b? I can't find any reference to a TSO on
the instrument specification sheet that was provided with my
altimeter.

Normally if an equipment or instrument is TSO compliant the
manufacturer doesn't hide that fact. It's usually obviously declared
on the specification sheet and any marketing brochures.

Andy

[John Smith]

Andy wrote:
>> The TSO number is written on that sheet (among other things).
>
> Are you saying you have looked at TS 10.220/48 and that it specifies
> compliance with ETSO-C10b?

No. I'm saying that I have seen such "Kennblätter" of other instruments
before and I'm just explaining the meaning of the number TS 10.220/48.

I've already suggested in an earlier post that you ask directly Winter.
They have an email address.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 7, 3:26*pm, John Smith > wrote:
> Andy wrote:
> >> The TSO number is written on that sheet (among other things).
>
> > Are you saying you have looked at TS 10.220/48 and that it specifies
> > compliance with ETSO-C10b?
>
> No. I'm saying that I have seen such "Kennbl tter" of other instruments
> before and I'm just explaining the meaning of the number TS 10.220/48.
>
> I've already suggested in an earlier post that you ask directly Winter.
> They have an email address.

Ok, thanks for the input on TS 10.220/48!

Andy

[jcarlyle]

Andy,

I was getting that equivalence from my LS8 manual and the JAA Form
One, and it isn't straight forward.

Go to this site: http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/Data/Manuals/ls8-s-sb-maint-man.pdf
and look on page 6-1. They list 3 Winter altimeters, each with a TS
10.220/xx designation which they title TCDS No., and then they say "or
other Altimeters approved according to TSO, JTSO or ETSO for use in
aircraft...A similar FAA approved altimeter to meet TSO C10...may be
used." This descriptor (TS 10.220/xx) is only used in DG and Stemme
flight manuals, as far as I can tell.

On the JAA Form One for my 4 FGH 40 altimeter, the designation TS
10.220/48 appears in Block 13. In Block 14 the Airworthiness box is
checked, and the words "Certifies that the part identified above
except as otherwise specified in Block 13 was manufactured in
accordance with the applicable design documents and with the
airworthiness regulations of the stated country" describe Block 14.

This of course is all circumstantial. No where on the Winter
Bordgerate site can I find a TSO mentioned, nor do they use the TS
10.220/xx designator anywhere on their site.

Just to add more fun, for my Becker AR 4201 transceiver the JAA Form
One gives JTSO 2C37d and 2C38d in the description in Block 7. In Block
13 it lists LBA O.10.911/87. The LS8 manual cited above lists similar
10.911/xx designators for other radios, and adds the words "or other
radios approved according to TSO, JTSO or ETSO for use in aircraft".

The common use of the 10.yyy/xx designator makes me suspect this
describes a design document that supercedes or incorporates the
relevant TSO. But of course, that's a guess, primarily based upon DG
associating such a designator with a TSO.

-John




On Dec 7, 4:51 pm, Andy > wrote:
> My research indicates that the European equivalent of TSO C10b is ETSO-
> C10b. I have searched for "TS 10.220/48" but can't find it anywhere.
> Can you tell us how you know TS 10.220/48 is equivalent to TSO C10b.
> Not saying it isn't, but would like to have a reference.

[John Smith]

jcarlyle wrote:
> This descriptor (TS 10.220/xx) is only used in DG and Stemme
> flight manuals, as far as I can tell.

No. It's a LBA (the German FOCA) thing. I have no idea whether and how
this has changed with EASA.

In the mean time, I've learnt that the correct English name of the paper
is "Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)", and the number is called
"Approval Number". If the device ist TSOed, then that TSO should be
found on that sheet.

[jcarlyle]

I think something is getting lost in translation.

I've never heard of a TCDS being used for anything other than
aircraft, and I cannot find a TCDS on the web that doesn't apply to an
aircraft (except in the LS8 manual I cited above). Also, a TSO doesn't
apply to an aircraft, just instruments. Lastly, the Approval Number
format we're dealing with here, 10.220/xx, doesn't fit the format of
the numbers used for European TDCS for aircraft found in Europe. For
example, the LS8 had a TCDS under the LBA of 402, under EASA it is now
A.047.

Something doesn't make sense.

-John

On Dec 7, 6:43 pm, John Smith > wrote:
> No. It's a LBA (the German FOCA) thing. I have no idea whether and how
> this has changed with EASA.
>
> In the mean time, I've learnt that the correct English name of the paper
> is "Type Certificate Data Sheet (TCDS)", and the number is called
> "Approval Number". If the device ist TSOed, then that TSO should be
> found on that sheet.

[jcarlyle]

A little progress. First, John Smith is correct - the designator TS
10.220/xx is indeed an LBA thing, and it appears to still be in use.
Here's a list of the categories:
http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/zuger/revisionsstand%20neu.pdf

Category 4 is for Sailplanes, which is here: http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/zuger/04-segel.pdf
Note the September 2010 issue date. Note also the form of the number
in the first column, this really is a TCDS number.

Category 12 is for Flight and Navigation Instruments, which is here:
http://www2.lba.de/dokumente/zuger/12-1-navgeraete.pdf
Note the form of the number in the first column, it appears to me to
not be a TCDS but rather a TS number. Technical Specification, maybe?
Unfortunately, the 10.220/48 designator for the Winter altimeter in
question isn't in this list - don't know why.

I picked another number, 10.220/40, for a United altimeter which I
know is in production, but I had no luck in finding the text for this
TS document on the Web. So at this time its still unclear if the a LBA
TS will link back to a TSO.

-John

[John Smith]

jcarlyle wrote:
> I picked another number, 10.220/40, for a United altimeter which I
> know is in production, but I had no luck in finding the text for this
> TS document on the Web. So at this time its still unclear if the a LBA
> TS will link back to a TSO.

I tried this a couple of years ago with a turn indicator. (Actually,
that's why I know about it.) When I asked, the LBA said that those
sheets are not on the web, and they sent me a PDF.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Dec 7, 12:14*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> Bzzzttt I've got to shoot myself here for getting missing the critical
> regulation....

I hope you are healing but the abuse may not have been justified.

The full text of 14 CFR 91.217 is as follows:

"§ 91.217 Data correspondence between automatically reported
pressure altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference.

(a) No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting
equipment associated with a radar beacon transponder—

(1) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC;

(2) 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; or

(3) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the
standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively.

(b) No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting
equipment associated with a radar beacon transponder or with ADS–B Out
equipment unless the pressure altitude reported for ADS–B Out and Mode
C/S is derived from the same source for aircraft equipped with both a
transponder and ADS–B Out."


Note that (a)( 3) is "or-ed" with condition (a)(2). Also note that
for a glider no altimeter is used to maintain flight altitude since
maintaining flight altitude is not a requirement for gliders.

I would conclude that 91.217 imposes no requirement for the altimeter
to be TSO C10b compliant. If the OP can't argue that the altimeter is
not used to maintain flight altitude then a correspondence check with
a non TSO certified altimeter will meet the requirement of 14 CR
91.217 (a)(2). The correspondence check only needs to be done to the
"maximum operating altitude of the aircraft" which may be defined for
the OP's motor glider but isn't for any unpowered glider.

I would further argue that, if there is no requirement to maintain
flight altitude, then the altimeter is not part of the automatic
pressure altitude reporting equipment. If this is accepted then the
only requirement left from 14 CFR 91.217 is that the encoder is TSO
C88b compliant. That's a no brainer since they all are.

It's much easier to install the equipment yourself than argue the
regulations with someone you pay to do the work for you!

Andy