Chinese Gauges

WarriorPilot

WarriorPilot

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
66
Location
Arkansas
Display Name
Display name:
warriorpilot
Be careful with those "Falcon" gauges folks !
There is a company at Trade-A-Plane selling them as if they are "legal" to install them in your airplane. They are chinese gauges, and are NON-TSO'd...!!!
"Falcon" is manufacturing turn coordinators, attitude gyros, Tach Indicators, Directional Gyros, Altimeters, etc. and many people are buying them, to find out the big surprise that they can not be installed, because they are not legal.

Just today a friend of mine, called me to see where he can send his electric Falcon horizon for repair, he removed it from a cessna 172. :yikes:
 
bartmc said:
What makes them illegal?
Click to expand...

I have some non-TSO'd avionics in my aircraft legally -- if the TSO is the only concern don't buy into that being the only limiting factor (since it may very well be legal to put non-TSO into your aircraft)
 
Apache123 said:
I have some non-TSO'd avionics in my aircraft legally -- if the TSO is the only concern don't buy into that being the only limiting factor (since it may very well be legal to put non-TSO into your aircraft)
Click to expand...

Some older Narco radios were non-Tso'd, the only problem is that most shops won't touch them.
:rolleyes2:
 
WarriorPilot said:
Ask it to your local FAA inspector or FSDO
:wink2:
Click to expand...

Why, Do you really expect them to know?

These would be the same people that told us we could only have required crew in our tow plane.

Brian
 
Last edited:
It is only fair. We sell the chinese our quality US built planes and they sell us their crappy quality chinese built junk.
 
bartmc said:
Actually the Chinese sells us their quality US built planes....:hairraise:
Click to expand...
Only time will tell. I cannot think of anything I have that is over 10 years old and built in China. How many of us are flying planes that are over 10 years old and built in the US?
 
bartmc said:
Kx170b is non tsoed also and you don't see those either.
Click to expand...

Neither are the KX-155 and KY-97.
The KX-175 and the KX-165 are the TSOd versions.

For MOST operations, TSO'd components are only required or Part 135 operations (depending on op specs). Hence why almost everyone (including headset makers) have TSO and non-TSO versions of their equipment.

I have yet to see anyone point to the regulation that requires TSO for most instruments and avionics in Part 91 operations (with the exception of IFR GPS's which have specific TSOs for IFR operations).
 
PilotAlan said:
Neither are the KX-155 and KY-97.
The KX-175 and the KX-165 are the TSOd versions.

For MOST operations, TSO'd components are only required or Part 135 operations (depending on op specs). Hence why almost everyone (including headset makers) have TSO and non-TSO versions of their equipment.

I have yet to see anyone point to the regulation that requires TSO for most instruments and avionics in Part 91 operations (with the exception of IFR GPS's which have specific TSOs for IFR operations).
Click to expand...

Op, our resident A&P, has been spreading more misinformation, just pointing it out for him. That said, I wouldn't buy falcon gauges either with their known issues. But TSO doesn't have nuthin' to do with it.
 
What authorization gives the owner the ability to substitute part numbers of TSO'ed items on their aircraft, with non TSOed items?

Can anyone here quote the definition of Airworthiness?

Does "type design" mean anything to anyone here?
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
What authorization gives the owner the ability to substitute part numbers of TSO'ed items on their aircraft, with non TSOed items?

Can anyone here quote the definition of Airworthiness?

Does "type design" mean anything to anyone here?
Click to expand...

The TCDS does on my (and most aircraft other than glass panel) do not call out any instruments, nor model numbers, nor that they must be TSOd.

So again, please refer to the regulation requiring that instruments must be TSOd.
I have seen the discussion many times, and many claim that something MUST be TSOd, but cannot point to a regulatory basis for that requirement.

I truly am trying to get a definitive answer, and so far, I haven't seen anything but opinion and rhetoric.
 
PilotAlan said:
The TCDS does on my (and most aircraft other than glass panel) do not call out any instruments, nor model numbers, nor that they must be TSOd.

So again, please refer to the regulation requiring that instruments must be TSOd.
I have seen the discussion many times, and many claim that something MUST be TSOd, but cannot point to a regulatory basis for that requirement.

I truly am trying to get a definitive answer, and so far, I haven't seen anything but opinion and rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Was your aircraft produced on a production certificate?
Did the production certificate dictate the part numbers that were excepted as the type design?

Unless the items you want to use as a replacement part are FAA/PMA, approved as replacement parts, you need approval to use them, because that is a change to the type design.
 
Tom-D said:
Was your aircraft produced on a production certificate?
Did the production certificate dictate the part numbers that were excepted as the type design?

Unless the items you want to use as a replacement part are FAA/PMA, approved as replacement parts, you need approval to use them, because that is a change to the type design.
Click to expand...

So your position is that nothing can go in the aircraft without a TSO, PMA, or STC?

1st, that means that you cannot put a KX-170 or KX155 in your airplane, as there is not a TSO, PMA, or STC for them, and they aren't on the TCDS or Production Cert (because they didn't exist at the time).

Also, the only thing the FAA says about instruments in AC 20-62E has to do with the use of used instruments, and only says they SHOULD be inspected or tested as necessary (and without saying what the applicable regulations are:
"Aircraft Instruments. Instruments advertised as high quality, looks good, or remanufactured or that were acquired from aircraft involved in an accident should not be put in service unless they are inspected, tested, and/or overhauled as necessary, by an appropriately rated FAA-certificated repair station, and the installer establishes that (for the aircraft in which) the instrument installed will comply with the applicable regulations."

Again, there is a lack of clear guidance on this matter, and if there was a clear requirement for TSOd instruments, it would seem there would be an opinion, AC, or enforcement action somewhere.
 
PilotAlan said:
So your position is that nothing can go in the aircraft without a TSO, PMA, or STC?

1st, that means that you cannot put a KX-170 or KX155 in your airplane, as there is not a TSO, PMA, or STC for them, and they aren't on the TCDS or Production Cert (because they didn't exist at the time).

Also, the only thing the FAA says about instruments in AC 20-62E has to do with the use of used instruments, and only says they SHOULD be inspected or tested as necessary (and without saying what the applicable regulations are:
"Aircraft Instruments. Instruments advertised as high quality, looks good, or remanufactured or that were acquired from aircraft involved in an accident should not be put in service unless they are inspected, tested, and/or overhauled as necessary, by an appropriately rated FAA-certificated repair station, and the installer establishes that (for the aircraft in which) the instrument installed will comply with the applicable regulations."

Again, there is a lack of clear guidance on this matter, and if there was a clear requirement for TSOd instruments, it would seem there would be an opinion, AC, or enforcement action somewhere.
Click to expand...
Radios are not a part of the type designed, they are optional equipment, you could order a 172 with narco equipment, or king, they simply appeared on the equipmnt list.

No so with instruments, and other appliances that were part of the airframe or engine production certificate.
 
Last edited:
Does your aircraft have an illustrated parts break down?

What gives you authorization to deviate from it?

PMA,,,, a different manufacturer has proven that his item is equal to the OEM.

see FAR 21.319 Design changes.
(a) Classification of design changes. (1) A “minor change” to the design of an article produced under a PMA is one that has no appreciable effect on the approval basis.

(2) A “major change” to the design of an article produced under a PMA is any change that is not minor.

(b) Approval of design changes. (1) Minor changes to the basic design of a PMA may be approved using a method acceptable to the FAA.

(2) The PMA holder must obtain FAA approval of any major change before including it in the design of an article produced under a PMA.
 
PilotAlan, some Narco, King radios were produced NON-TSO just because they are the "export" version of the product, some countries do not require FAA approval.
As far as any "N" aircraft, you have to stick to our regulations. I don't think an avionics shop or an A&P will install a non-tso'd part in your airplane anyway.
 
Last edited:
WarriorPilot said:
PilotAlan, some Narco, King radios were produced NON-TSO just because they are the "export" version of the product, some countries do not require FAA approval.
As far as any "N" aircraft, you have to stick to our regulations. I don't think an avionics shop or an A&P will install a non-tso'd part in your airplane anyway.
Click to expand...

What requires TSOed parts on N-Number aircraft? You're warning people but I'd like to know what makes it "illegal"?
 
WarriorPilot said:
<snip>
As far as any "N" aircraft, you have to stick to our regulations. I don't think an avionics shop or an A&P will install a non-tso'd part in your airplane anyway.
Click to expand...

This is the problem, and Avionics, Shops and A&P's and even the FAA are spreading this Myth.

They all say we have to "Stick to our regulations" but no one can produce the regulation we are supposed to stick to.

Tom-D is talking about something slightly different, in he is talking about replacing original equipment as opposed to installing new equipment. He is likely correct that you can't replace the original Oil pressure gauge with a non-PMA part. I doubt there is such a thing as a TSO oil pressure gauge. But it is perfectly legal to install a 2nd oil pressure gauge purchased at the local auto parts store, since it is not replacing an OEM part and there is not a regulation requiring it be TSO'ed. However the original one has to still be functional.

If I am incorrect, please provide the regulation that would be broken by the above.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
brcase said:
This is the problem, and Avionics, Shops and A&P's and even the FAA are spreading this Myth.

They all say we have to "Stick to our regulations" but no one can produce the regulation we are supposed to stick to.

Tom-D is talking about something slightly different, in he is talking about replacing original equipment as opposed to installing new equipment. He is likely correct that you can't replace the original Oil pressure gauge with a non-PMA part. I doubt there is such a thing as a TSO oil pressure gauge. But it is perfectly legal to install a 2nd oil pressure gauge purchased at the local auto parts store, since it is not replacing an OEM part and there is not a regulation requiring it be TSO'ed. However the original one has to still be functional.

If I am incorrect, please provide the regulation that would be broken by the above.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
Click to expand...
It really depends upon how the TCDS and the production certificate is written.

Many old classic aircraft do not even have a production certificate and thus can be changed as a matter of a minor alteration. and only a log book entry to return the aircraft to service.

but that said, you best be in compliance with FAR 43-A when you make that decision.

Oil pressure gauges are a good example, the old Clark style are no longer available, and many gauges are on the market that will comply with the fit, form, and function rules, yet there are several that have gone the route of STC to get the paper work correct.

We always have the option to ask FSDO, but usually they will not commit to the decision. that leaves it up to the installing person to make the decision.

There is a point that many owners do not realize, the TCDS is only one source to the type design requirements, the production certificate is the other. For example all Cessna 172s are built on the same TCDS, but every model has its own production certificate, and many parts are not interchangeable from one model to the other. That is why we use the Usable on Codes in the IPB.

Adding equipment to the aircraft generally takes one of two methods, a field approval, or an STC. Mostly because of the requirements of FAR 43-A. Other wise it will depend upon the installer to determine if it is a major or minor alteration.

And TSO is not a factor in making that decision.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
We always have the option to ask FSDO, but usually they will not commit to the decision. that leaves it up to the installing person to make the decision.
Click to expand...

Welcome to root-cause. When a regulatory agency who made the rules in the first place, can't even figure it out, and the agency can't be consistent across multiple regional offices (individual FSDOs...) ... the whole thing is a giant cluster**** "open to interpretation".

Then we get something that happens that triggers a requirement to make a decision and the Chief Counsel who's never turned a wrench for a living in their life, does it from behind a desk.

"Inconsistency breeds contempt."
 
denverpilot said:
Welcome to root-cause. When a regulatory agency who made the rules in the first place, can't even figure it out, and the agency can't be consistent across multiple regional offices (individual FSDOs...) ... the whole thing is a giant cluster**** "open to interpretation".

Then we get something that happens that triggers a requirement to make a decision and the Chief Counsel who's never turned a wrench for a living in their life, does it from behind a desk.

"Inconsistency breeds contempt."
Click to expand...

That's really not why they do not want to get involved with the decision.

The FARs are pretty clear, and A&P-IAs are supposed to know FAR 21,23, 43, and 91.

Plus they don't want to be a link in any chain of liability.
 
Tom-D said:
....The FARs are pretty clear, and A&P-IAs are supposed to know FAR 21,23, 43, and 91.

Plus they don't want to be a link in any chain of liability.
Click to expand...
.


I don't get it... If the FAR's are pretty clear, and the FAA's task is to enforce the FAR's, then a question for them to clarify any issue falls directly on their shoulders... Period...:yes:
 
N801BH said:
.


I don't get it... If the FAR's are pretty clear, and the FAA's task is to enforce the FAR's, then a question for them to clarify any issue falls directly on their shoulders... Period...:yes:
Click to expand...

Good luck with that.
 
It's always great when the rule creators can't even figure them out and are scared of heir own liability in making them ridiculously complex. ;)
 
denverpilot said:
It's always great when the rule creators can't even figure them out and are scared of heir own liability in making them ridiculously complex. ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed....

The real fiasco is one FSDO will approve something and the one next door won't.... There needs to be consistancy in any set of given rules /specs...

Can you imagine a NFL football game where the coachs are the ones to call the shots and make decisions on plays, while the referrees refuse to commit to any decision.... That is the true defination of insanity.:goofy::mad2:
 
Would you guys like it better if the rules were ridged and unflexable. or would you rather have the ability to interpret
 
Tom-D said:
Would you guys like it better if the rules were ridged and unflexable. or would you rather have the ability to interpret
Click to expand...

Rigid is fine when the rules are sane and consistent and they can be challenged via a reasonable process that every FSDO has to conform to.
 
denverpilot said:
Rigid is fine when the rules are sane and consistent and they can be challenged via a reasonable process that every FSDO has to conform to.
Click to expand...

Bureaucrats do not like clear rules.
Vague rules allow the bureaucrat room to 'interpret' as needed, to reach the outcome the bureaucrat desires, and to enforce their will upon the subjects.

When the rules are unclear and open to nearly infinite interpretations, then each bureaucrat is able to find a violation any time, with anyone the bureaucrat wishes as the target.
Hence, the subjects do anything needed to avoid the wrath of bureaucrat, and grovel before his nearly infinite administrative power.

Further, this convinces the subjects to behave in extremely conservative manners to avoid violating any possible interpretation that the bureaucrat could employ.
The effect of this is to expand the bureaucracy's control significantly farther than the rules actually permit, by the subjects essentially limiting their own behavior farther than the rules allow.

When the rules are clear, the subjects are able to determine what is and is not allowed and avoid the bureaucrat. The power of the bureaucrat is thereby reduced.
 
denverpilot said:
Rigid is fine when the rules are sane and consistent and they can be challenged via a reasonable process that every FSDO has to conform to.
Click to expand...

If the FAA makes the rules ridge, you will be buying only the parts that the manufacturer provides, there will be no modification of any product or aircraft.

That was the entire argument when we ended up with ICAs, the lawyers and manufacturers wanted ridged rules, and that was how they wanted them written.

Thank God Bill O'brian saved us from that crap.
 
PilotAlan said:
Bureaucrats do not like clear rules.
Vague rules allow the bureaucrat room to 'interpret' as needed, to reach the outcome the bureaucrat desires, and to enforce their will upon the subjects.

When the rules are unclear and open to nearly infinite interpretations, then each bureaucrat is able to find a violation any time, with anyone the bureaucrat wishes as the target.
Hence, the subjects do anything needed to avoid the wrath of bureaucrat, and grovel before his nearly infinite administrative power.

Further, this convinces the subjects to behave in extremely conservative manners to avoid violating any possible interpretation that the bureaucrat could employ.
The effect of this is to expand the bureaucracy's control significantly farther than the rules actually permit, by the subjects essentially limiting their own behavior farther than the rules allow.

When the rules are clear, the subjects are able to determine what is and is not allowed and avoid the bureaucrat. The power of the bureaucrat is thereby reduced.
Click to expand...

Exactly correct.....
 
PilotAlan said:
Bureaucrats do not like clear rules.
Vague rules allow the bureaucrat room to 'interpret' as needed, to reach the outcome the bureaucrat desires, and to enforce their will upon the subjects.

When the rules are unclear and open to nearly infinite interpretations, then each bureaucrat is able to find a violation any time, with anyone the bureaucrat wishes as the target.
Hence, the subjects do anything needed to avoid the wrath of bureaucrat, and grovel before his nearly infinite administrative power.

Further, this convinces the subjects to behave in extremely conservative manners to avoid violating any possible interpretation that the bureaucrat could employ.
The effect of this is to expand the bureaucracy's control significantly farther than the rules actually permit, by the subjects essentially limiting their own behavior farther than the rules allow.

When the rules are clear, the subjects are able to determine what is and is not allowed and avoid the bureaucrat. The power of the bureaucrat is thereby reduced.
Click to expand...
The rulers are clear, the FAA allows us to 'interpret' also, they give us a lot of guidance in the form of AC's regulations and procedures to gain authorization to alter aircraft in the field.

Just because you do not understand them does not make them bad.
 
Tom-D said:
The rulers are clear, the FAA allows us to 'interpret' also, they give us a lot of guidance in the form of AC's regulations and procedures to gain authorization to alter aircraft in the field.

Just because you do not understand them does not make them bad.
Click to expand...

So Tom, can you install non-TSOed Chinese built gyros in a certified airframe?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top