So what regulation(s) is/are being broken

KennyFlys said:
I think it's also faster than the common sense of some if left to their own accord.

My thought is... if equipment installed is required to comply with TSO, would non-TSO'd equipment be allowed for use for critical navigation functions?
Click to expand...

Critical navigation functions like airways navigation? What FAR requires TSO'd VOR receivers?
 
Rotor&Wing said:
I have discussed this with the FAA
Click to expand...
Who in the FAA? A local inspector or someone in the Flight Technologies & Procedures Division (AFS-400)? I asked the Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-410 to be exact) at HQ, and they make the call on such matters.
 
KennyFlys said:
My thought is... if equipment installed is required to comply with TSO, would non-TSO'd equipment be allowed for use for critical navigation functions?
Click to expand...
Not when the governing rules require TSO'd equipment. That's why non-TSO'd GPS's aren't allowed for IFR use, and non-TSO'd ELT's don't meet the 91.207 requirment. Note that since there's no requirement for a TSO for VOR receivers, TSO isn't an issue for them, but they do have to meet certain minimum standards to be certified for use in the airplane.
 
roncachamp said:
Critical navigation functions like airways navigation? What FAR requires TSO'd VOR receivers?
Click to expand...
For something not required, a bunch of companies sure put a lot of effort (and obviously money) into certification for Technical Standard Order TSO-C36E for various VOR/Localizer receivers. Go to This Link and enter that TSO to look at more. But here, you can see one more specifically for a Com/Nav most of us are familiar with, the KX-155.

Also, here's AC 20-110L. It's the most recent list of TSOs I can find. As said by Mark, I'm sure things happen faster than be kept up on. Individual TSO's can be found in the RGL.
 
KennyFlys said:
For something not required, a bunch of companies sure put a lot of effort (and obviously money) into certification for Technical Standard Order TSO-C36E for various VOR/Localizer receivers.
Click to expand...
There are other reasons for doing that. That's why King used to offer two versions of its primary nav/comm -- the non-TSO KX-170, and the more expensive but physically and electronically identical TSO'd KX-175. The difference? Tighter quality control rules, and QC costs money.
 
Isn't TSO required in some operations like 135/121 where it's not required for part 91? Or is it in other countries.

I thought that if you flew for the airlines your headset had to be TSOed. Not sure if that's true for 135.
 
TMetzinger said:
Isn't TSO required in some operations like 135/121 where it's not required for part 91? Or is it in other countries.

I thought that if you flew for the airlines your headset had to be TSOed. Not sure if that's true for 135.
Click to expand...
"You can look it up." - Annie Savoy
 
Ron Levy said:
"You can look it up." - Annie Savoy
Click to expand...
Well I did, (searching for TSO in parts 135 and 121) and didn't find anything that indicates a requirement for TSO'd headsets.

Perhaps someone can correct me, or confirm that they use non-TSOed headsets in their operations.
 
TMetzinger said:
Well I did, (searching for TSO in parts 135 and 121) and didn't find anything that indicates a requirement for TSO'd headsets.

Perhaps someone can correct me, or confirm that they use non-TSOed headsets in their operations.
Click to expand...

Doesn't the absence in those Parts of a regulation requiring TSO'd headsets confirm that TSO'd headsets are not required?
 
It should, but I'd rather hear from Greg or Teller or other airline pilots if they have contrary information. Perhaps it's a company policy thing, rather than a regulation.
 
roncachamp said:
An odd request for ATC to make since they've got you on radar.
Click to expand...


If I remember correctly it had to do what would happen if during the segment radar contact was lost.

Like I stated earlier, this came about during a conference with the POI and other FAA officials on class one and class two navigation and our flying of certain Atlantic routes using class one navigation. I posed a question of using cross plotting to fix a position, etc, etc.
 
TMetzinger said:
Well I did, (searching for TSO in parts 135 and 121) and didn't find anything that indicates a requirement for TSO'd headsets.

Perhaps someone can correct me, or confirm that they use non-TSOed headsets in their operations.
Click to expand...

No such requirement. I have used a variety of headsets over the years, right now I use a Telex Airman 750 with the earpiece on one side only.
 
Ron Levy said:
Who in the FAA? A local inspector or someone in the Flight Technologies & Procedures Division (AFS-400)? I asked the Flight Procedure Standards Branch (AFS-410 to be exact) at HQ, and they make the call on such matters.
Click to expand...

Ron, it's obvious you have little or no experience with commercial operations under 121 or 135. When we have operational meetings with our POI's we ask operational questions and use their guidance. If the POI is unsure then he goes up his chain of command for an answer. The FAA encourages the use of proper channels for communication, that's why we have POI's, PMI's and PAI's, etc.

I'll end my discussion on the topic. Thanks.:smilewinkgrin:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Ron, it's obvious you have little or no experience with commercial operations under 121 or 135. When we have operational meetings with our POI's we ask operational questions and use their guidance. If the POI is unsure then he goes up his chain of command for an answer. The FAA encourages the use of proper channels for communication, that's why we have POI's, PMI's and PAI's, etc.
Click to expand...

Most of us are not flying 121 or 135, we're flying 91 and thus discussions on this board should probably be viewed in that context. :yes:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
If the POI is unsure then he goes up his chain of command for an answer. The FAA encourages the use of proper channels for communication, that's why we have POI's, PMI's and PAI's, etc.
Click to expand...

I'd be rather (pleasantly) surprised to learn that none of the inspectors you've dealt with have ever offered their own (incorrect) opinion as "fact".
 
Rotor&Wing said:
If I remember correctly it had to do what would happen if during the segment radar contact was lost.
Click to expand...

If radar contact is lost the aircraft should be routed via airways or within the distance limitations of navaids.
 
TMetzinger said:
It should, but I'd rather hear from Greg or Teller or other airline pilots if they have contrary information. Perhaps it's a company policy thing, rather than a regulation.
Click to expand...

I haven't really been keeping up with this thread (it's way above my pay grade/intelligence level), but no, TSO headsets are not required in our book. I use a Lightspeed QFRSoloC (I want a Zulu!!!). I've seen all different variety of over-the-ear and in-the-ear headsets. Pretty much everything that has been made is probably in use here. All our planes are stocked with one David Clark POS passive headset...pretty sure they're not TSOed. I am astounded, though, that EVERY single company headset has loose screws and crappy mics. It's like they come that way; I think it's the David Clark Craptastic Airline model.
 
Teller1900 said:
I haven't really been keeping up with this thread (it's way above my pay grade/intelligence level), but no, TSO headsets are not required in our book. I use a Lightspeed QFRSoloC (I want a Zulu!!!). I've seen all different variety of over-the-ear and in-the-ear headsets. Pretty much everything that has been made is probably in use here. All our planes are stocked with one David Clark POS passive headset...pretty sure they're not TSOed. I am astounded, though, that EVERY single company headset has loose screws and crappy mics. It's like they come that way; I think it's the David Clark Craptastic Airline model.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure, but aren't most DC headsets TSOd?
 
sba55 said:
I'm not sure, but aren't most DC headsets TSOd?
Click to expand...

I have no earthly clue. All I know is, our book doesn't say anything about TSO being required. My headset isn't TSO'd. I can't imagine, of all the brands and types I see every day that even a majority of them are TSO'd. I only guessed that the ones in our planes aren't, because I assume the TSO'ing process requires them to demonstrate a certain level of quality and these don't have quality of any kind :).
 
From the David Clark website, it appears that all of their passive headsets
are TSO'd. The headphones and the ENC models are not TSO'd.
 
lancefisher said:
I'd be rather (pleasantly) surprised to learn that none of the inspectors you've dealt with have ever offered their own (incorrect) opinion as "fact".
Click to expand...
Thanks, Lance -- exactly my point. They'll tell you something they're sure is right without checking up the line, and then when you try to confirm it, it turns out to be wrong. And I have done a bit of 135 and 141 work, so I know POI's aren't perfect.
 
Last edited:
With regard to the TSO equipment thing. We just went through this at the flight school a while back. My boss put a 182 into pt 135 and everything installed on the airplane had to be TSO'ed, which required changing out a few pieces in the panel. Since headsets are not actually installed I can't imagine they would need to be TSO'ed.
 
Don Jones said:
With regard to the TSO equipment thing. We just went through this at the flight school a while back. My boss put a 182 into pt 135 and everything installed on the airplane had to be TSO'ed,
Click to expand...
I just checked back through Subpart C of Part 135, and except for the transponder (see 135.143(c)), I can't find anything there which says avionics have to be TSO'd for 135 use -- or is someone interpreting that "have been approved" phrase in 135.143(b) to mean that? If so, where is that interpretation written?
 
Sigh... I appreciate the responses from the 121 and 135 guys on the original headset issue. But I still believe the pilot who said he had to use a TSO'ed headset in his operation - probably because some inspector told him (or his boss) so.

There are days that I think "reinventing" government will require firing everyone above a certain grade level, and making them re-apply for their jobs (many shouldn't get them).
 
TMetzinger said:
Sigh... I appreciate the responses from the 121 and 135 guys on the original headset issue. But I still believe the pilot who said he had to use a TSO'ed headset in his operation - probably because some inspector told him (or his boss) so.

There are days that I think "reinventing" government will require firing everyone above a certain grade level, and making them re-apply for their jobs (many shouldn't get them).
Click to expand...

I can't even begin to tell you how many times something has been run up the ladder to our PIO, we're given an absolutely final official answer, only to have a read-and-sign come out a month later saying :that was wrong and here's a new way of doing it." Especially with the addition of the new fleet time to our operating certificate; they're backtracking on rules and procedures almost weekly, even a year into the operation! Contrary to popular belief, the FAA and its representatives are only human and can be wrong from time to time.

Your friend may well have been told that it was required but that doesn't necessarily mean it actually is.
 
Ron Levy said:
I just checked back through Subpart C of Part 135, and except for the transponder (see 135.143(c)), I can't find anything there which says avionics have to be TSO'd for 135 use -- or is someone interpreting that "have been approved" phrase in 135.143(b) to mean that? If so, where is that interpretation written?
Click to expand...

No idea where it's written, just what he had to do to get it past the ops inspector.
 
Back when I used to fly metroliners, we would always accept direct routes with only a VFR GPS. This is usually how the exchange would go:

Us: Fort Worth Center, this is XXXX requesting direct destination
FWC: Hmm, I see you as slant alpha
Us: Yes but we have a VFR GPS on board.
FWC: OK, proceed direct O'Haire
US: Roger, direct ORD.

We made no attempt to hide ourselves, and this company has done this for years. Never a word was said to us by any aviation authority about us doing this.
 
dsffdssdf said:
Back when I used to fly metroliners, we would always accept direct routes with only a VFR GPS. This is usually how the exchange would go:

Us: Fort Worth Center, this is XXXX requesting direct destination
FWC: Hmm, I see you as slant alpha
Us: Yes but we have a VFR GPS on board.
FWC: OK, proceed direct O'Haire
US: Roger, direct ORD.

We made no attempt to hide ourselves, and this company has done this for years. Never a word was said to us by any aviation authority about us doing this.
Click to expand...
That's a straight up violation of 91.205(d)(2), a regulation which controllers are not authorized to waive. However, it's a violation only for the pilot who accepts the clearance, not the controllers, who are not responsible for knowing what equipment is required for a pilot to accept a given clearance -- that is solely the pilot's responsibility.

Of course, if nothing goes wrong, nobody will care. But if something does go wrong, and a "deal" or other reportable situation occurs, the pilot is toast, especially after the conversation above is played back for the investigating Inspector.
 
dsffdssdf said:
Us: Fort Worth Center, this is XXXX requesting direct destination
FWC: Hmm, I see you as slant alpha
Us: Yes but we have a VFR GPS on board.
FWC: OK, proceed direct O'Haire
US: Roger, direct ORD.
Click to expand...

Ron Levy said:
That's a straight up violation of 91.205(d)(2), a regulation which controllers are not authorized to waive. ... Of course, if nothing goes wrong, nobody will care. But if something does go wrong, and a "deal" or other reportable situation occurs, the pilot is toast, especially after the conversation above is played back for the investigating Inspector.
Click to expand...

Ron, does radar contact provide any leeway here? I'm not suggesting everybody go off airway under IFR with nothing but VFR handhelds, but if the aircraft is in radar contact the whole time, it would seem radar guidance would allow 92.205(d)(2) to apply to this scenario.
 
TknoFlyer said:
Ron, does radar contact provide any leeway here? I'm not suggesting everybody go off airway under IFR with nothing but VFR handhelds, but if the aircraft is in radar contact the whole time, it would seem radar guidance would allow 92.205(d)(2) to apply to this scenario.
Click to expand...
You can get vectors to a navaid you can receive yourself, but you cannot be simply cleared direct (i.e., own nav) to either a navaid you're not receiving or a point to which you cannot navigate direct on your own using approved equipment. Scenarios, assuming no IFR GPS or other approved RNAV equipment:
  • You're flying to a distant airport with a VOR on the field, but not yet close enough to receive the VOR. You can accept the following: "Fly heading 270, when receiving Moosebutt VOR, proceed direct." You cannot accept, "Cleared direct Moosebutt" unless/until you're receiving Moosebutt VOR suitable for navigation.
  • You're flying on an airways clearance, heading north, about 30 miles short of the next bend in the route at Moosebutt VOR, where the route turns west. Bongo intersection is 50 west of Moosebutt. You cannot accept: "Proceed direct Bongo intersection." You can accept: "Fly heading 300 and join V123 west of Moosebutt VOR near Bongo, and then use your VFR GPS to help you stay on line to Bongo, but you can do that with nothing but a VOR, too.
  • You're flying to a distant airport with no navaid you can receive on the field. You cannot accept "Cleared direct Squirrel Pit Airport." You can accept either "Fly heading 270, vectors for the visual at Squirrel Pit" or "Fly heading 270, vectors for the ILS 33 at Squirrel Pit."
Get the drift? The critical question is whether you're being left to navigate on your own ("cleared direct") or whether the controller is retaining primary responsibility for your navigation ("Fly heading xxx" -- a radar vector clearance).

Of course, in any of these cases, be aware that if you lose comm in IMC, you're going to have to work out a plan to get there without those vectors. However, at that point, 91.3(b) kicks in, and in this emergency situation, you can (and probably should) legally use your VFR/handheld GPS (or anything else you have) to help get you there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top