non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?

"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

"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

"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

"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

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: 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

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: 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

"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...

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: 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...

"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.

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