If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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). |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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/Ma...-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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
tso altimeter
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
WTB: used 57mm Altimeter OR swap for 80mm Altimeter | joesimmers | Soaring | 0 | November 3rd 09 11:59 AM |
Looking for TSO Altimeter | Rob Turk | Home Built | 0 | June 9th 07 03:52 PM |
Altimeter off | kevmor | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | March 26th 07 12:11 PM |
encoding altimeter | mcfrog | Owning | 3 | May 30th 04 07:39 PM |
Altimeter experience | HankC | Piloting | 2 | July 25th 03 09:43 PM |