non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?

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.

"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

"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

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

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

"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

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: 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

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: 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

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 ?

"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