non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?

[Dico]

Hello,

I'm wondering if its legal to put a 2nd artificial horizon in the plane
as a backup if it is not certified? We may want to put one in the
plane as a backup... but just wanted to know if we need a certified
unit or not.

Thanks,

-dr

[RST Engineering]

Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?

Jim



"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Jul 2006 19:30:26 -0700, "Dico" > wrote:

>>I'm wondering if its legal to put a 2nd artificial horizon in the plane
>>as a backup if it is not certified? We may want to put one in the
>>plane as a backup... but just wanted to know if we need a certified
>>unit or not.

>
> If you intend to use it for navigational purposes it needs to be
> certified.
>
> z

[Dave Stadt]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On 17 Jul 2006 19:30:26 -0700, "Dico" > wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I'm wondering if its legal to put a 2nd artificial horizon in the plane
>>as a backup if it is not certified? We may want to put one in the
>>plane as a backup... but just wanted to know if we need a certified
>>unit or not.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>-dr
>
>
> If you intend to use it for navigational purposes it needs to be
> certified.
>
> z

Bzzzzzt, wrong.

[zatatime]

On 17 Jul 2006 19:30:26 -0700, "Dico" > wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I'm wondering if its legal to put a 2nd artificial horizon in the plane
>as a backup if it is not certified? We may want to put one in the
>plane as a backup... but just wanted to know if we need a certified
>unit or not.
>
>Thanks,
>
>-dr


If you intend to use it for navigational purposes it needs to be
certified.

z

[Robert M. Gary]

It may take some doing but sometimes you can. I was able to talk the
Sacramento FSDO into approving (in concept) a co-pilot located non TSO
-AI. The agreement was that I would never apply for 135 and that the
instrument would be labeled "VFR only". However, before installation
Sporty's came out with reallly cheap TSO'd AIs so I never did the
install.

-Robert


Dico wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm wondering if its legal to put a 2nd artificial horizon in the plane
> as a backup if it is not certified? We may want to put one in the
> plane as a backup... but just wanted to know if we need a certified
> unit or not.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -dr

[zatatime]

On Tue, 18 Jul 2006 04:10:38 GMT, "Dave Stadt"
> wrote:

>
>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>> On 17 Jul 2006 19:30:26 -0700, "Dico" > wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I'm wondering if its legal to put a 2nd artificial horizon in the plane
>>>as a backup if it is not certified? We may want to put one in the
>>>plane as a backup... but just wanted to know if we need a certified
>>>unit or not.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>-dr
>>
>>
>> If you intend to use it for navigational purposes it needs to be
>> certified.
>>
>> z
>
>Bzzzzzt, wrong.
>

Fill me in....What's right then?

z

[Steve Foley[_1_]]

Hmmm...

I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
>
> Jim
>

[zatatime]

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> wrote:

>Hmmm...
>
>I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....
>
>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
>>
>> Jim
>>
>


I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
(non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?

z

[Dave Stadt]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> > wrote:
>
>>Hmmm...
>>
>>I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....
>>
>>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>
>
>
> I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
> is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
> (non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?
>
> z

You want someone to prove a negative. Better approach is to find where it
is required. If you can't find it you are home free.

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/19/06 20:51, Dave Stadt wrote:
> "zatatime" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Hmmm...
>>>
>>>I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....
>>>
>>>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
>> is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
>> (non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?
>>
>> z
>
> You want someone to prove a negative. Better approach is to find where it
> is required. If you can't find it you are home free.
>
>

Well ... I looked all through the magazines I have in the bathroom and
found nothing ;-)


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[RST Engineering]

Precisely my point. You can find TSO requirements for ELTs, altitude
encoders, and transponders in the regs. They are strangely silent for all
else.

Jim



>
> You want someone to prove a negative. Better approach is to find where it
> is required. If you can't find it you are home free.
>

[Dave Stadt]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
> On 07/19/06 20:51, Dave Stadt wrote:
>> "zatatime" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hmmm...
>>>>
>>>>I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....
>>>>
>>>>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>>>
>>>>> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
>>> is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
>>> (non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?
>>>
>>> z
>>
>> You want someone to prove a negative. Better approach is to find where
>> it is required. If you can't find it you are home free.
>
> Well ... I looked all through the magazines I have in the bathroom and
> found nothing ;-)

That's about the same thing you will find in the FARs excluding a very few
items.

>
> --
> Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
> Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
> Sacramento, CA

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> > wrote:
>
>>Hmmm...
>>
>>I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....
>>
>>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
>>>
>>> Jim
>
> I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
> is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
> (non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?
>
> z

The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Mark Hansen]

On 07/20/06 15:22, Juan Jimenez wrote:
> "zatatime" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Hmmm...
>>>
>>>I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....
>>>
>>>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>
>> I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
>> is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
>> (non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?
>>
>> z
>
> The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
> something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.

Are you saying that the insurance company is going to make up their
own rules for determining whether or not an aircraft is airworthy?

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Robert M. Gary]

Juan Jimenez wrote:

> The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
> something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.

That's always the wolf cry. In truth the insurance company is not quite
a evil as people like to talk about around the hanger.

-Robert

[Dave Stadt]

"Juan Jimenez" > wrote in message
...
>
> "zatatime" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>Hmmm...
>>>
>>>I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....
>>>
>>>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
>>>>
>>>> Jim
>>
>> I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
>> is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
>> (non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?
>>
>> z
>
> The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
> something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.

Give me a break, have you ever read an insurance policy? Try it some time,
you will be surprised at what you will learn.



>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Since an AI isn't typically required for the right seat position in
light aircraft, why would the insurance company care? The OP asked about
using a 2nd AI as a backup. Do you think the insurance company would
rather not have a backup in place, or allow one that was non-TSO ?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juan Jimenez ]
> Posted At: Thursday, July 20, 2006 17:22
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
> Subject: Re: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
>
>
> "zatatime" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>Hmmm...
> >>
> >>I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....
> >>
> >>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>>
> >>> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
> >>>
> >>> Jim
> >
> > I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says
it
> > is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
> > (non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?
> >
> > z
>
> The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
> something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[noname]

Your insurance company can't tell you what you can and can't put in
your airplane.
It needs to be legal and even that's a grey area.

I called up Avemco a while back and asked them about being insured if
your out of annual and they said that I was.

I have never heard of an insurance not covering an aircraft in an
accident because of a radio or wigget that was out of spec or date.

If that was the case, most aircraft would not be covered at all.




Jim Carter wrote:
> Since an AI isn't typically required for the right seat position in
> light aircraft, why would the insurance company care? The OP asked about
> using a 2nd AI as a backup. Do you think the insurance company would
> rather not have a backup in place, or allow one that was non-TSO ?
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Juan Jimenez ]
> > Posted At: Thursday, July 20, 2006 17:22
> > Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> > Conversation: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
> > Subject: Re: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
> >
> >
> > "zatatime" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>Hmmm...
> > >>
> > >>I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....
> > >>
> > >>"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>>
> > >>> Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?
> > >>>
> > >>> Jim
> > >
> > > I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says
> it
> > > is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
> > > (non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?
> > >
> > > z
> >
> > The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
> > something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Robert M. Gary]

I've actually had insurance companies offer me incentives to fly
un-airworthy (paperwork wise) aircraft to get them out of the location
they were in to a more secure location. The insurance company is
interested in preserving assets MUCH more than watching FAA paper
pushers. Reducing accidents would probably fall under that.

I have a friend who removed his shoulder harness after an IA pointed
out that he did not have the proper STC for the installation. I've
always wondered if he would have survived his crash had he had them. ;(

-Robert

Jim Carter wrote:
> Since an AI isn't typically required for the right seat position in
> light aircraft, why would the insurance company care? The OP asked about
> using a 2nd AI as a backup. Do you think the insurance company would
> rather not have a backup in place, or allow one that was non-TSO ?

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
>> something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.
>
> Are you saying that the insurance company is going to make up their
> own rules for determining whether or not an aircraft is airworthy?

Maybe not, but a jury might, if the TSO'd AI hacks up a hairball and even
with the backup there's an accident. Remember the Carnahan crash?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Juan Jimenez wrote:
>
>> The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
>> something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.
>
> That's always the wolf cry. In truth the insurance company is not quite
> a evil as people like to talk about around the hanger.

Considering that I didn't say anything about "evil"... you did. Freudian
slip? :)



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
.com...
> Since an AI isn't typically required for the right seat position in
> light aircraft, why would the insurance company care? The OP asked about
> using a 2nd AI as a backup. Do you think the insurance company would
> rather not have a backup in place, or allow one that was non-TSO ?

Oh please... Now you're getting into the realm of the truly ridiculous.
Insurance companies are in the business of making money, not being proactive
about safety or technology unless there's a direct connection to the bottom
line.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"noname" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Your insurance company can't tell you what you can and can't put in
> your airplane.
> It needs to be legal and even that's a grey area.
>
> I called up Avemco a while back and asked them about being insured if
> your out of annual and they said that I was.

On the ground, not in the air unless you have a ferry permit and even then
the policy might exclude that as well.

Juan



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Juan Jimenez[_1_]]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I've actually had insurance companies offer me incentives to fly
> un-airworthy (paperwork wise) aircraft to get them out of the location
> they were in to a more secure location.

And what was the problem with the current location? Could it be that that
was a one-time issue involving, perhaps, a hurricane or something similar?

> The insurance company is
> interested in preserving assets MUCH more than watching FAA paper
> pushers. Reducing accidents would probably fall under that.

That's all well and good until the insurance company is facing a lawsuit and
the probable cause can even remotely be associated to something to which any
amount of doubt can be assigned.

AVEMCO itself warns people about exclusions in their policies. This is what
they say on their web site:

Q: What are some common exclusions that can void my coverage?
A: Exclusions vary from policy to policy. Therefore, it is very important
that you read your policy, and familiarize yourself with its specific
exclusions. If you have any questions about your Avemco aircraft insurance
policy, please call for clarification. Check out the article on this web
site, "Claim Denials, Why They Happen and How to Avoid Them" for more
information on exclusions.

The URL they point to on that paragraph is this one...
https://www.avemco.com/briefingroom/claimsdenial.asp




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

The Carnahan crash was caused by the pilot's inability to manage
multiple failures if I remember correctly. Both vacuum pumps failed (one
was known before takeoff wasn't it?) and the pilot failed to recognize
that the vacuum gyros were bogus. Sure the jury found for the plaintiff,
but there was a lot of public emotion in that case and damn few facts.
If it had been a 135 ride it probably wouldn't have left the ground, but
since Carnahan's kid was flying it part 91 he was allowed to make stupid
decisions.

I'd be hesitant to cite the Carnahan case as anything except an example
of a runaway jury.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juan Jimenez ]
> Posted At: Friday, July 21, 2006 17:41
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
> Subject: Re: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
>
>
> "Mark Hansen" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
> >> something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a
claim.
> >
> > Are you saying that the insurance company is going to make up their
> > own rules for determining whether or not an aircraft is airworthy?
>
> Maybe not, but a jury might, if the TSO'd AI hacks up a hairball and
even
> with the backup there's an accident. Remember the Carnahan crash?
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Please, we entered the realm of the ridiculous when we started
considering that approved and properly documented (but non-TSO)
accessories added to an aircraft might void an insurance policy.

It would be real nice if someone could cite a passage in their insurance
policy that supports the insurance company's authority to regulate
outside the FARs.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Juan Jimenez ]
> Posted At: Friday, July 21, 2006 17:43
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
> Subject: Re: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
>
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> .com...
> > Since an AI isn't typically required for the right seat position in
> > light aircraft, why would the insurance company care? The OP asked
about
> > using a 2nd AI as a backup. Do you think the insurance company would
> > rather not have a backup in place, or allow one that was non-TSO ?
>
> Oh please... Now you're getting into the realm of the truly
ridiculous.
> Insurance companies are in the business of making money, not being
> proactive
> about safety or technology unless there's a direct connection to the
> bottom
> line.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[.Blueskies.]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message .com...
: The Carnahan crash was caused by the pilot's inability to manage
: multiple failures if I remember correctly. Both vacuum pumps failed (one
: was known before takeoff wasn't it?) and the pilot failed to recognize
: that the vacuum gyros were bogus. Sure the jury found for the plaintiff,
: but there was a lot of public emotion in that case and damn few facts.
: If it had been a 135 ride it probably wouldn't have left the ground, but
: since Carnahan's kid was flying it part 91 he was allowed to make stupid
: decisions.
:
: I'd be hesitant to cite the Carnahan case as anything except an example
: of a runaway jury.
:
:

The vacuum pumps did not fail, just the AI...

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Didn't the vacuum source fail which caused the AI to fail? I thought the
jury decision was based on there being no vacuum failure annunciator,
but I could be wrong.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: .Blueskies. ]
> Posted At: Saturday, July 22, 2006 06:33
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
> Subject: Re: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
>
>
> "Jim Carter" > wrote in message
> .com...
> : The Carnahan crash was caused by the pilot's inability to manage
> : multiple failures if I remember correctly. Both vacuum pumps failed
(one
> : was known before takeoff wasn't it?) and the pilot failed to
recognize
> : that the vacuum gyros were bogus. Sure the jury found for the
plaintiff,
> : but there was a lot of public emotion in that case and damn few
facts.
> : If it had been a 135 ride it probably wouldn't have left the ground,
but
> : since Carnahan's kid was flying it part 91 he was allowed to make
stupid
> : decisions.
> :
> : I'd be hesitant to cite the Carnahan case as anything except an
example
> : of a runaway jury.
> :
> :
>
> The vacuum pumps did not fail, just the AI...

[.Blueskies.]

"Jim Carter" > wrote in message .com...
: Didn't the vacuum source fail which caused the AI to fail? I thought the
: jury decision was based on there being no vacuum failure annunciator,
: but I could be wrong.
:
:

My understanding is the primary AI rolled over on its back and the pilot was not proficient enough to fight the
disorientation. I do know the vacuum pumps were OK even though Parker had to pay...The jury got it wrong...

Here is the nitty gritty:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAB0202.htm
Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's failure to
control the airplane while maneuvering because of spatial disorientation. Contributing to the accident were the failure
of the airplane's primary attitude indicator and the adverse weather conditions, including turbulence.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
zatatime > wrote:

> I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
> is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
> (non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?

My cherokee has a non-TSO'd DME installed under an STC.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate