Non-TSO for Certified Aircraft

Tom-D said:
As long as your radio meets the aviation standards as far as frequency rules it does not need a TSO.
ADS-b I'm not so sure because it must interface with the national system. I do not understand how the national system can tell if your signal came from a TSOed transmitter.
Click to expand...
the SIL code identifies the type of unit transmitting the data.....
 
Bob Brown said:
I have concluded I can save a few hundred dollars by installing a non TSO radio (such as an “experimental” approved radio like a Garmin 200)
Click to expand...
Yes. FYI: as mentioned before there is no such thing as "experimental" radios. After the addition of Part 3 which made false advertising on parts for a TC'd aircraft a FAR violation, vendors started declaring non-approved parts "experimental" or something similar on a regular basis. The vendor does not determine what is installed, the owner does. Logbook entry, equipment list update, and new empty weight and bal (if needed) is all that is required.

Bob Brown said:
Is the installation of the radio a “replacement” or a minor alteration?
Click to expand...
Now here is the "but" to the equation. If your aircraft was certified/delivered with a radio and you want to "replace" that radio then the part has to technically be an approved (TSO) part per the FARs under "replacement parts." However, if you declare this radio change as a "minor alteration" then the non-TSO radio is good to go. It might seem like a goat-rope but it's how the FARs are written.

Bob Brown said:
that a transponder and GPS must be TSO; but where do you find the FAR or Order or other FAA written statement that TSO is required for this type of equipment?
Click to expand...
I believe for Part 91 ops the Xspndr (91.215) and GPS (depending on enroute use or approach use functions) only need to meet the requirements of the TSO, not mfg'd to TSO. Part 135/121 have more stringent requirements that I recall include TSO required equipment.

Bob Brown said:
can I legally install a non certified skyBeacon on my Stinson with just a logbook entry from my A&P/IA?
Click to expand...
It's not so much the ADS-B needs to be approved but the device that determines the aircraft position and the subsequent "pairing" between the two units that needs to be certified. There are several docs out there with one attached below (also read the included 2016 memo). But from what I recall the ADS-B unit only needs to meet the requirements of the TSO (not mfg'd to TSO). The aircraft position unit (digitizer, xspnder, gps) needs to have a certain level of approval. However, guidance also states once an ADS-B unit and a position unit have been approved via a STC, etc then the approved data from that combination can be used to install those units on a different aircraft not covered by the original approval (STC). A rather confusing mess.

I'm sure it will be further changed/clarified as the deadline gets closer. But my nickel is on any aircraft position/ADS-B equipment that was previously approved to work per the FAR will be allowed installation on any aircraft as a minor alteration. I believe this is why the EAA got involved with the Dynon install.

http://www.faa.gov/nextgen/equipads...b_out-in_installation_tech_paper(9-25-17).pdf
 
The only requirement for radios to meet TSO requirements is in part 135.

there are radios that meet the requirement, but are not TSOed such as the KX170 / KX175, But I see no transponders that way.
It seems that when transponders are built, they are certified as compliant, and the paper is done to make them TSOed.
 
tom is spot on . wow this/my post is a thread killer;)
 
Thanks for the responses.

I believe I am OK with a non-TSO radio installation, even if it replaces the OEM radio in my certified aircraft, because a non-TSO radio compiles with the CAR 3 and the TC which only specifies the radio cannot in and of itself be hazardous to other components in the panel or cockpit. I believe the challenge will be convincing the IA to “sign off.” I will also need to consider the impact on the future sale of the aircraft.

The ADS-B out issue is more confusing. Do I understand that an ADS-B unit which is manufactured to a TSO standard but is not certified to be a TSO unit ( the mfg. does not want to take the time or incur the certification costs) can be legally utilized? If so, how would you come to learn and prove that a non TSO ADS-B unit was nevertheless made to the TSO standard? Will the manufacturer provide that information in written form for your logbook or submission to the IA and/or FAA?
 
Bob Brown said:
because a non-TSO radio compiles with the CAR 3 and the TC
Click to expand...
Technically CAR3/Part23 has no direct bearing on an alteration since you are basically altering the original aircraft configuration. These regs cover certification not alteration. Installing the non-TSO radio as an alteration falls under the requirements of Part 43 and the definition in Part 1. And if your mechanic deems it a minor alteration he can sign it off, no IA needed. However, as mentioned before in other posts the IA who performs your annuals may have a question or two so be sure to note the guidance used in your log entry.

Bob Brown said:
Do I understand that an ADS-B unit which is manufactured to a TSO standard
Click to expand...
Yes it is confusing. But there's no separate "certification" of the unit. A part "manufactured to TSO" means it is produced under the TSOA approval will get stamped TSO. When it "meets the standard" means it is manufactured however but the output specifications equal the specifications listed in the FAA TSOA. There are a number of ways to compare to the TSO spec like using the specs provided by equipment provider. But as for the ADS-B, the explanation in the doc I linked above shows additional approvals are needed to use a ADS-B unit that meets the TSO standard.
 
There isn't one. The regulatory aspects of what parts are "legal" to install in an airplane are comprised of a scattered mess of Advisory Circulars, FAA Orders, and vague regulatory wording (like "Approved Data" and "Data Acceptable to the Administrator."). With respect to TSOd equipment (not equipment that "meets" TSO, but that actually has a TSO), the FAA has said this part is acceptable to be installed in airplanes. That gives an A&P a lot of comfort and takes the burden (and liability) of that decision off his/her shoulders. Now that A&P just has to decide that the TSOd part can be installed in THIS airplane, which is generally an easier task. With STCd parts, the FAA has said this particular part can be installed in this particular airplane, which makes things REALLY easy for an A&P. You can see why A&Ps like TSOd stuff, but really, really prefer STCd stuff (with ultimate preference being factory parts). As far as I can tell, there is no rule that says an A&P can or cannot install non-TSOd, PMAd, or STCd parts on an certified airplane; the A&P has the legal authority to make that ultimate airworthiness decision and install the part. However, if the FAA decides the A&P was wrong, trouble is likely. If you're a working A&P counting on that job as your livelihood, what would you do?
Click to expand...

Apologies for coming late to this thread...

What is the difference in the A&P's liability between installing a TSOd or STCd part, versus a part which has no approvals (but on which suitable due diligence was done to make sure it isn't counterfeit etc)?

AIUI, the A&P is not liable for anything unless he has made a mistake. If an A&P installs an engine and the engine blows up and kills somebody, unless somebody can show that the engine was not installed IAW the MM/IPC/etc, the A&P is not liable.
 
peter-h said:
Apologies for coming late to this thread...

What is the difference in the A&P's liability between installing a TSOd or STCd part, versus a part which has no approvals (but on which suitable due diligence was done to make sure it isn't counterfeit etc)?

AIUI, the A&P is not liable for anything unless he has made a mistake. If an A&P installs an engine and the engine blows up and kills somebody, unless somebody can show that the engine was not installed IAW the MM/IPC/etc, the A&P is not liable.
Click to expand...

Whether there is real liability or not is usually almost irrelevant; the cost to prove that you have no liability (attorneys' fees) can bankrupt most people.
 
Sure, but how is that different between having installed a TSOd part and one that isn't?
 
peter-h said:
What is the difference in the A&P's liability between installing a TSOd or STCd part, versus a part which has no approvals (but on which suitable due diligence was done to make sure it isn't counterfeit etc)?
Click to expand...
There is no single answer to your questions without specific examples. There are separate rules to follow dependent on how a part is installed on an aircraft.

For example, if the item being installed is considered a replacement part then per the FARs that part needs to have an FAA approval and one set of rules are followed. If the part to be installed is not considered a replacement part then it would be installed as an alteration and a different set of rules would apply.

As for using the term liability, that’s more a legal word than a regulatory term. To use your engine install example, a mechanic could install the engine per all the available regulatory data without fail. Yet in a court of law, an enterprising attorney could still hold the same mechanic liable via standard of care negligence regardless of the regulatory aspect of the installation.

So it all depends…
 
FWIW, the FAA issued Policy Statement PS ACE-23-01-R1 nearly five years ago on the subject "Installation of Mounting Devices and Wiring Integration for Attachment of Portable Displays and Electronic Devices in Normal, Utility, and Acrobatic Category Airplanes."

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...17986257bf3006b423b/$FILE/PS ACE-23-01-R1.pdf

The policy provides wide latitude in installing panel mounted devices such as non-TSO'd portable GPS receivers like the Garmin Aera 660 using the AirGizmo panel dock hardwired to ship's power in certificated airplanes operating under Part 91.
 
Yet in a court of law, an enterprising attorney could still hold the same mechanic liable via standard of care negligence regardless of the regulatory aspect of the installation
Click to expand...

A lawyer will go after anyone who has money, but the action should fail if the target didn't do anything wrong. If the A&P installed the engine correctly, how can he be liable? Same with a modification done IAW the regulations.

That is a separate argument from who actually pays out without necessarily admitting liability, which goes on quite a lot.
 
Thread creep has taken this topic around the corner so, this is pretty much where we are.
43.13 Performance rules (general).
(a) Each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance on an aircraft, engine, propeller, or appliance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices prescribed in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness prepared by its manufacturer, or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the Administrator, except as noted in §43.16. He shall use the tools, equipment, and test apparatus necessary to assure completion of the work in accordance with accepted industry practices. If special equipment or test apparatus is recommended by the manufacturer involved, he must use that equipment or apparatus or its equivalent acceptable to the Administrator.

(b) Each person maintaining or altering, or performing preventive maintenance, shall do that work in such a manner and use materials of such a quality, that the condition of the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on will be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition (with regard to aerodynamic function, structural strength, resistance to vibration and deterioration, and other qualities affecting airworthiness).
 
peter-h said:
but the action should fail if the target didn't do anything wrong.
Click to expand...

peter-h said:
If the A&P installed the engine correctly, how can he be liable?
Click to expand...
The question still has no single answer as too many variables. But I’ll try this way instead. In general, a mechanic’s work can be critiqued on 2 separate and distinct levels.

The 1st level is regulatory and performed by the FAA. However, even if the mechanic installs our engine per all the FARS and rules he thought applicable, the Feds can still point a finger at something. But the Feds have the burden of proof to show which rule the mechanic violated. And it is handled administratively per the FARs.

The 2nd level only accounts for less than 1% of the incidents, but it’s at this level that liability actually becomes relevant. Enter US Tort law. And instead of the FARs or other aviation rules being the driving force, Tort law provides its own rules.

The only point a plaintiff’s attorney needs to make in this venue is that the mechanic did not use a standard of care, or defined in simpler terms as: the actions a reasonable person (mechanic) would take. How “reasonable” is defined is left purely to how the attorney will make his case.

If the attorney is good and convinces the judge/jury of these reasonable "facts", then the mechanic now becomes liable whether he followed the FAA rules or not and without any burden of proof.
 
Most times the FAA will never come after the Mechanic, Unless they feel the Mechanic is trying to hide some thing. in most cases the FAA will support the mechanic, in as much as court appearances, expert witness.
Best advice I have ever received was from my old PMI. " do the job properly, make the proper entry, And I'll support you, do a bad job, there is nothing anyone can do".
 
The trick words are "install" and "replace". So long as the device is not installed (permanently mounted) or used to replace a certified item, you can have anything in the cockpit with you, and most of us do (spare GPS, for example.)
 
tinerj said:
The trick words...
Click to expand...
There are no trick words. Only key words. A person can put any item they want in an aircraft that falls under a loose or portable (key word) equipment definition. If the portable item is electronic in nature, then Part 91 gives you the necessary guidance. If you need to alter (key word) the aircraft to put the item in the aircraft, then there are various methods to accomplish this.
 
The point of this entire and old discussion is people bemoaning that their A&P, IA doesn't want to install or approve non-tso equipment. You guys want to install this stuff, go ahead but get your IA and you do the signing, don't expect someone else to do the fighting with the FAA on your behalf when some no nothing inspector causes a stink about it. For all you guys that cry about how much it costs to have your plane worked on get a IA ticket.
For a guy that's trying to eek out a living as a A&P IA it is not worth the time or effort to do installs that may be perfectly legal but may put his arse in a jam. You may also have a issue with your insurance company if they try to find any way of getting out of paying a claim. Also if you ever want to sell it.
I was on a jump from a C-182 years ago when someone got killed, totally her own fault. The airplane had a car radio installed that was not connected to any other system in the airplane besides the power and ground. The pilot/owner got written up and was suspended from flying for six months for non approved equipment installation. The death had nothing to do with the aircraft, except the fact that the deceased jumper exited it. It was operated under Part 91.
So go ahead and install a toaster in your panel if you want, just don't expect someone else to cover your but. Don't expect the installer to spend the time, and time equals money, to save you a few hundred bucks.
Being in the right carries little weight in a fight with the feds. Sitting in a office trying to defend what the FAA says is illegal does not put food on the table.
Right now I have a guy trying to get me to sign off a annual on a C-172 with firewall damage,it appears minor, but there is also floor buckling behind the rudder pedals on both sides and SRM is of no help.The owner can't understand why I want to contact Cessna engineering. One IA already quoted him $40,000 to repair it, and won't sign a annual without the repair, but he's the field rip off.
Signing off a existing installation is one thing but signing off the installation is another. For the rest of that airplane's life that installation is on you.
 
The thing can boil down to a simple phrase, for us small fry, non-commercial operators, TSO is neither necessary nor sufficient to install things in general.
 
Here's a funny for you, Ron. I am an authorized EXPERIMENTAL dealer for a popular brand of ADSB. There is one production line. All the units come down the same production line with identical construction, parts, and tests. Some get this magic 8130? maintenance release and ARE TSOd. Some get put in a box marked EXPERIMENTAL and sold to me without the 8130. Difference? Absolutely none. But the Experimental parts are guaranteed to MEET the TSO, which they have to have to be legally installed.

We live in Alice's down-the-rabbit-hole world.

Jim
 
I can't wait until my mission can be done with an EXAB 2-seater. I'm sick and tired of these paperwork "winks and nods", just to appease litigious lawyers.
 
Some things must be rigorously tested and right on the money. The static installation for a RVSM aircraft in particular. This is what allows reduced vertical separation of aircraft above 24,000 ft (somewhere around there). I don't think I would care for some ham fisted owner of a Eclipse jet messing with one. A lot of regulations are there because sometime in the past some idiot decided he didn't need one of those over priced damn airplane grease monkeys, he's way smarter then they are. Like a lot of things the lowest common denominator is what drives a lot of regulations.
Then people get upset at the FAA for not addressing a problem until after the crash, screaming they are only reactionary to a problem.
You can't have it both ways.
 
You are correct, as a mechanic or inspector the paperwork will save you, if you wish to remain employed. Plenty of times when working on a airplane I've had a fed interrupt me while I was working on a airliner wanting to see my supporting documentation. It had better be near by and with a recent time stamp on it.
I recall a commuter aircraft (a Beech 1900 if memory serves me) that crashed in NC because of a mis-rigged elevator. Everyone on board killed. The contract maintenance mechanic that did the work, I believe a cable change, admitted he never did the job before, had no supervision doing it (violation), didn't use the maintenance manual (violation) because he had no access to it (violation). Also flight controls are a RII item requiring two mechanic sign offs.
Result: a bunch of dead people.
 
There are a few threads on the backcountry pilot forum about this. And there are several people there who have nicely re-done panels with "non-TSO'd" equipment. From what I understood, the distinguishing factor was often what was the original equipment on the aircraft and are you replacing it for VFR or IFR flight. Many of them were under the impression that you could install a nice glass panel as long as you placarded it with "not primary flight display" and maintained the certified minimum required equipment. Two cents.

https://backcountrypilot.org/forum/non-tso-d-instruments-14484
 
Well, let me just dig this one out of the archives. I was notified today of this:
https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/programs/sups/upn/media/2018/S20180315005_UPN.pdf

Which is an Unapproved Parts Notification specifically for VAL avionics. I have a VAL INS 429 installed in my plane.



AFFECTED PRODUCTS


VAL Avionics Ltd. communication, navigation, and electrical system articles:


1. COM 2000 VHF transceiver


2. NAV 2000 navigation receiver


3. INS 429 integrated navigation system


4. COM 2KR remote VHF transceiver


5. NAV 2KR remote navigation receiver


6. CLA 500 cockpit lighting system


7. VC 760 voltage converter


PURPOSE


This notification advises all aircraft owners, operators, manufacturers, maintenance organizations, parts suppliers and distributors of VAL Avionics Ltd. communication, navigation, and electrical power system (listed above) were produced without Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) production approval.

 
That's interesting, I had a field approval for an INS422 years ago
 
I've seen many things that hold no PMA/TSO/STC installed in certified aircraft, some of them substantiated as simple as a letter from an Aircraft Certification Office, some on field approvals. It's interesting to note that MIDO (manufacturing division of the FAA) wrote this.

Hell, the guys that started the STC Group (Trio autopilot cert) got an "illegal" autopilot field approved, prior to forming the STC Group and getting PMA/STC for it, from what I recall in an article.
 
There's an interesting distinction between the ability to market and sell parts for installation on a certified airplane, and the ability to install parts on a certified airplane. Just because a manufacturer can't market/sell products for installation in a certified airplane doesn't necessarily mean those parts cannot be legally installed in a certified airplane.
 
Timbeck2 said:
I have a VAL INS 429 installed in my plane.
Click to expand...
The key terms in a UPN are "until determined if eligible for installation." Which a mechanic can do. It's basically a Part 21 production issue and not a Part 43 installation issue. For example, you can legally install a marine radio in an aircraft that has zero Part 21 authorizations. If it is a concern to you contact VAL and inquire.
 
It isn't like I'm going to remove it any time soon and I don't plan to sell my plane any time soon either. I'm going to wait and see.
 
I just skimmed through the document to which Ryan linked and Tim referred. The following is a quote from the document, although the bold emphasis is mine:

"As part of determining whether installation of an article conforms with all applicable regulations, the installer should establish that the article was manufactured under a production approval pursuant to part 21, that an originally approved part has been maintained in accordance with part 43, or that the part is otherwise eligible for installation (i.e., has been found to conform to data approved by the FAA)."

I have no expertise in any of this, but there certainly seems to be wiggle room there; if the VAL electronics in question conformed to data approved by the FAA, i.e., specifications, required components/capabilities, whatever, then it would seem to suggest that clause's requirements were met and there would not be any problem. Granted, the document does go on to suggest that the VAL electronics should be removed from the aircraft and replaced with approved devices, but what is the difference? You can use "FAA-Approved" materials in your upholstery, or you can use materials that meet the required flame-retardant specifications w/out specific FAA endorsement. Would not this be a similar situation? I'm not opining that it is, merely asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top