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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
"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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
"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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
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... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
"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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
I want to build the most EVIL plane EVER !!! | Eliot Coweye | Home Built | 237 | February 13th 06 03:55 AM |
Looking for Cessna Caravan pilots | [email protected] | Owning | 9 | April 1st 04 02:54 AM |
WINGS: When do the clocks start ticking? | Andrew Gideon | Piloting | 6 | February 3rd 04 03:01 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |