Question about adding a second electric AI

"M" wrote in message
ps.com...
I'm considering adding a second (backup) electric AI. The primary AI
is vacuum driven so is the DG.

Two questions: 1. Does adding a backup electric AI require an 337?

Not necessarily. A repair station may be able to perform the work based on a
work order approval, since it's not really a major alteration. Ask your
local avionics shop.

2. Does the electric AI needs to be TSO'ed?

That I don't know, but aren't you adding this to improve safety of your
aircraft? From my point of view, that should make the answer obvious.

Juan

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 07:36:16 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:


"M" wrote in message
ups.com...
I'm considering adding a second (backup) electric AI. The primary AI
is vacuum driven so is the DG.

Two questions: 1. Does adding a backup electric AI require an 337?

Not necessarily. A repair station may be able to perform the work based on a
work order approval, since it's not really a major alteration. Ask your
local avionics shop.

Any work that alters (that includes drilling, cutting, riveting),
needs a 337.

2. Does the electric AI needs to be TSO'ed?

No, but I don't know of any worth their salt that aren't. With what
you need to spend on them you would think they would give you your own
personal engineer!
That I don't know, but aren't you adding this to improve safety of your
aircraft? From my point of view, that should make the answer obvious.

Juan

"Jon A." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 07:36:16 -0400, "Juan Jimenez"
wrote:


"M" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm considering adding a second (backup) electric AI. The primary AI
is vacuum driven so is the DG.

Two questions: 1. Does adding a backup electric AI require an 337?

Not necessarily. A repair station may be able to perform the work based on
a
work order approval, since it's not really a major alteration. Ask your
local avionics shop.

Any work that alters (that includes drilling, cutting, riveting),
needs a 337.

There is one exception, that I know of. Check AC 43.9-1E.

You'd never last long at the FAA. I have a friend that died from a head
injury in an aircraft accident after he removed his shoulder harnesses
because the FAA inspector said he didn't have the proper paperwork for
them. I've worked for flight schools that have had the full 100% FAA
maintenance audit done on them. I never once saw one look at an
airplane, all they care about is the paperwork.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
You'd never last long at the FAA. I have a friend that died from a head
injury in an aircraft accident after he removed his shoulder harnesses
because the FAA inspector said he didn't have the proper paperwork for
them.

Umm, interesting story... and the FAA forced him to fly without it? Twisted
his arm and all, eh? Must have been a doozy of a lawsuit, with criminal
charges and all...

Juan Jimenez wrote:
"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
You'd never last long at the FAA. I have a friend that died from a
head
injury in an aircraft accident after he removed his shoulder
harnesses
because the FAA inspector said he didn't have the proper paperwork
for
them.

Umm, interesting story... and the FAA forced him to fly without it?
Twisted
his arm and all, eh? Must have been a doozy of a lawsuit, with
criminal
charges and all...

Told him the plane was unairworthy and that the harnesses were
unapproved. I would have taken them out too. We also had an Aeronca
together that didn't have harnesses so it didn't seem like such a big
deal.

The previous owner had installed them without any paperwork, no one
knew where they came from.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
You'd never last long at the FAA. I have a friend that died from a head
injury in an aircraft accident after he removed his shoulder harnesses
because the FAA inspector said he didn't have the proper paperwork for
them. I've worked for flight schools that have had the full 100% FAA
maintenance audit done on them. I never once saw one look at an
airplane, all they care about is the paperwork.

-Robert


It seems to me from my experience with FAA they are quite reasonable, even
encouraging, about shoulder harness add-ons. I know that the A&P said he
wouldn't sign them off, told me to install them and sign them off myself,
that they were not TSO'd; but from my understanding they are still legal and
favored by the FAA:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/safety/harness/seatbelt.cfm

I noticed that your link doesn't seem to include a link for a harness
for a Swift. Perhaps that's why the inspector made him take it out. Not
a lot of people making parts for a Swift. I flew that Swift quite a few
times. The best memories were taxiing around with the canopy back
taxiing by the girls. Once you were in the air it was nothing special
to write home about. Just a small 2 seater with no room for luggage and
fuel tanks you could never really tell were full or empty (the right
wing tank didn't even have a fuel cap to look into). You poured fuel
into the left tank and just crossed your fingers that some ran into the
right.

-Robert