What happened to Skysensor TSO?

WannFly

WannFly

Final Approach
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
6,553
Location
KLZU
Display Name
Display name:
Priyo
I had read that there will be a TSO version of Skysensor by uAvoinics .... can’t find it anymore. Did they pull it or was that a pipe dream all along?
 
Probably a no go because they couldn’t get it to market soon enough and now there is no long term market. All this ADSB stuff is boom and bust with few units being upgraded after Jan 1.
 
I think they cancelled SkySensor for certified aircraft earlier this year (no explanation why). So SkySensor is for experimental only. They're supposed to be releasing their SkyLight nav/strobe that matches the look of the SkyBeacon.
 
I just installed it using the data from the sky beacon installation for the 337. No issues. I put in the 337 all the information pertaining to the install. It’s something as an IA you can do without a field approval.
 
Paveslave53 said:
I just installed it using the data from the sky beacon installation for the 337. No issues. I put in the 337 all the information pertaining to the install. It’s something as an IA you can do without a field approval.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, did you install the EXP version on a certificated plane with a 337?
 
It is a STCd product for ADSB out.
 
5C2D08E6-87A6-4C90-9A85-86BC6227866F.jpeg I apologize I’m misreading I’m thinking skybeacon . Different thing haven’t installed a sky sensor ? What is it
 
So why haven’t you guys just got a Field approval ? Super easy. There is already data for the install of the out system that using the same mount,wire, nav and strobe lights approved. It has to be the easiest field approval yet all the documentation is there.
 
Chortle, there are NO easy field approvals in most FSDOs these days.
 
Interesting I haven't had a issue and we get them all the time. Maybe its more difficult out east to get a good FSDO.
 
Got a field approval. It’s going on my 182.
 
I should ask around a bit regarding a field approval here. I'd love to have the skysensor vs the skylight.
 
Paveslave53 said:
Got a field approval. It’s going on my 182.
Click to expand...

Does a mechanic request field approval or can an owner? Are there tips that would improve likelihood of getting approval?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hzkr said:
Does a mechanic request field approval or can an owner? Are there tips that would improve likelihood of getting approval?
Click to expand...

Field approval would be via an FAA Form 337, therefore a function of an IA. You could potentially call and talk to the FSDO to test the waters, but the only official process is via a 337.
 
Hzkr said:
Are there tips that would improve likelihood of getting approval?
Click to expand...
Field approval is a little more than walking into the FSDO and requesting one. One of the preferred methods is to have your AP/IA come up with a plan, fill out a 337 exactly how you plan to repair/alter the aircraft along with references/copies of the acceptable data you will be using for this install/alteration and take it to an ASI at the FSDO. If he agrees with your plan as written on the 337, he will stamp and sign Block 3, which approves the process/data you have presented, i.e., a field approval. Then you must repair/alter your aircraft as stated on the 337, etc., etc.
Eric Lehto said:
Field approval would be via an FAA Form 337, therefore a function of an IA.
Click to expand...
FYI: the field approval itself is a function of an FAA ASI or in some cases a DAR with appropriate function codes. Anybody can technically fill out a 337 and assemble the necessary data. The IA merely signs off on the 337 once the mechanic side is completed, and verifies the work performed and approves it for return to service. However, unless the owner is also an A&P it's always best to have the AP/IA involved.
 
Last edited:
The FAA has guidance on field approvals that differ based on what's being approved. Engines are pretty much right out anywhere these days. Things that mandate TSO authorization are not likely to be approved when they lack it.

Go ahead, try your FSDO and prove me wrong. I'd love to be wrong. I just can't see it happening.
 
flyingron said:
The FAA has guidance on field approvals that differ based on what's being approved. Engines are pretty much right out anywhere these days. Things that mandate TSO authorization are not likely to be approved when they lack it.

Go ahead, try your FSDO and prove me wrong. I'd love to be wrong. I just can't see it happening.
Click to expand...

Coworker got field approval for WAAS/LPV navigator in PA28 in 2017​

I got iCom A210 field approved in 2017, with homemade mic/phone jack housings with AMP CPC disconnects (literally pictures of the assemblies on a page and assigned drawing number and revision level), an Altitude Alert everything else on that 337 was a TSO such as audio panel, NAV, CDIs, transponder also a WAAS/LPV AFMS. Not one question about anything other than some changes on the AFMS.

Brother got a Brittain Pitch Stabilization field approved in late 2016 for 172H, yep that is autopilot stuff. Brittain had it all drawn up but it was never approved.

I got field approval for a Gamin G5 as a "standby" indicator, not in a position that Garmin STC required, more like an STC deviation but 337 stamped in block 3 no less.

About 5 years ago we got a field approval to replace slicks with Bendix mags on an O-320, in the process replaced single impulse system with dual impulse.

All took a month or more from submittal to receiving.

If I'm not mistaken the Trio guys got a field approval for their personal airplane's autopilots before they pursued STC & PMA.
 
Last edited:
Hzkr said:
Does a mechanic request field approval or can an owner? Are there tips that would improve likelihood of getting approval?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Depends on the particular ASI. I've obtained 3 field approvals for my Twin Bonanza, and I handled each one directly with the FSDO; the ASI was content with the representation that my IA was aware and approved of the docs I was submitting. Many A&P/IAs are bad at paperwork; I think most ASI's are happy to work with an owner who is actually good at paperwork.
 
flyingron said:
The FAA has guidance on field approvals that differ based on what's being approved. Engines are pretty much right out anywhere these days. Things that mandate TSO authorization are not likely to be approved when they lack it.

Go ahead, try your FSDO and prove me wrong. I'd love to be wrong. I just can't see it happening.
Click to expand...

Oh I'm with ya 100%. It's a bunch of scavenger hunt, "I'm feeling lucky" browser button, inconsistent nonsense of a "process". The vassals will defend it of course, but that's nothing new.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, Skysensor is simply a receiver at 1090 MHz. that gives data to a transponder with Extended Squitter to downlink at 1030. It in and of itself is not a transmitter-receiver at 1030-1090. If somebody that knows what the hell they are talking about will verify this, I will say more.

Jim
 
weirdjim said:
Skysensor is simply a receiver at 1090 MHz. that gives data to a transponder
Click to expand...
https://uavionix.com/downloads/skySensor/skySensor-manual.pdf
Per Skysensor docs is appears to be only a receiver which wifi's data to a "GDL90 compatible" device. No xspnder involved. Since there's no FARs or FAA mandates on the IN side of the equipment, plus with a number of portable ADS-B IN units out there already, I don't see any problem with installing it as a minor alteration? Do you? The position light looks to meet its requirements so it would basically be a position light alteration. And if someone wanted to go the major alteration/field approval route, I would think the existing physical install data for the ADS-B OUT side (Skybeacon) would more than satisfy any requirements and a quick "EMI" check on the unit's wifi capability with existing installed equipment would suffice also??
 
That’s all I did it was easy. But It does Require a 337, Field approval and then install it and do the paperwork. No big deal. I used most the data from the Left side with power, installation, Fit form and function. If your FSDO wont approve it I would be surprised. It’s a Nav/Strobe light with WIFI in. Nothing more. Your not trying to install a PT6 on a cub. As far as an alteration it is a major alteration make no mistake.
 
By the FAR. An alteration is maintenance that that adds to and/or removes from the original type certificate. It’s Black and white this is the Reason you need a 337 and a field approval. Same reason there Is an STC for everything else. Perfect example you change your air filter from a bracket to a Challenger..... 337... now there is approved
Data so it makes it ok under the STC.
Unless you do a field approval for the sky sensor there is no APPROVED data. There is no way to spin it to the FAA where your just changing a lightbulb. You are removing components previously certificated and installing something with no testing, that has been approved data by the FAA on a certificated aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Paveslave53 said:
An alteration is maintenance that that adds to and/or removes from the original type certificate.
Click to expand...
You do understand there are two types of aircraft alteration? Not all alterations require approved data or a "field approval." So the question stands, which part of the Skybeacon meets the requirements of a major alteration vs a minor alteration per the definition in Part 1 and Part 43 Appendix A(a)??
 
Well the SKYBeacon has an STC so that’s self explanatory. If your referring to a a major and a minor alteration yes I am very aware. So if you look at AC 43-210A standardized procedures for obtaining approval of data used in the performance of major alterations and repairs. FAR Part 21.9 reads if a person knows or should know that a replacement or modification artical is reasonably likely to be installed on a type certificates product then the person many not produce that artical unless.....produced under type cirt,faa production approval , and so on. And if you want to make it simple if you just read appendix A to Part 43 as you asked it clearly states Major alteration,Major Repairs and preventive Maintenance. (1). Airframe MAJOR alteration of the following PARTS of the following types Wings it the first. Sub part (xii) changes to electrical system. Sub part (xiii) changes to wing or to fixed or movable control surfaces which affect flutter and vibration. And to make it simple you can not just add an experimental part to a certificated aircraft because you feel like it. I went and got a field approval. Not to mention if you read farther down to Appliance Major alteration how can you prove you havent made any changes to navigational equipment,noise level,sensitivity,distortion or the key ability to meet environmental test conditions. That is why. You can not install a random part without APPROVED data.... the only way your getting it Is with an STC or a DER field approval. FAR 21.95 also ready minor changes in type design may be approved under a method acceptable to the FAA........ Descriptive data....AKA 337 for field approval.
 
Bell206 said:
https://uavionix.com/downloads/skySensor/skySensor-manual.pdf
Per Skysensor docs is appears to be only a receiver which wifi's data to a "GDL90 compatible" device. No xspnder involved. Since there's no FARs or FAA mandates on the IN side of the equipment, plus with a number of portable ADS-B IN units out there already, I don't see any problem with installing it as a minor alteration? Do you? The position light looks to meet its requirements so it would basically be a position light alteration. And if someone wanted to go the major alteration/field approval route, I would think the existing physical install data for the ADS-B OUT side (Skybeacon) would more than satisfy any requirements and a quick "EMI" check on the unit's wifi capability with existing installed equipment would suffice also??
Click to expand...

Your correct the sky beacon install made for a quick data transfer for the 337 it was the easiest field approval you will ever get. They don’t care about the ADSB in portion. They only care that you are making a change to the original type design you have to 1 bypass and remove the strobe powerpack. So now you just changed the aircrafts original type certificate design.
 
Paveslave53 said:
Well the SKYBeacon
Click to expand...
My bad. Meant skySENSOR... so what part of the skySENSOR do you think makes the install a major alteration?

As an FYI, not all "random part" installs/alterations require "approved" data. Acceptable data works just fine. And this is not an "appliance" alteration.

Plus to save you some typing, have signed off a few major/minor alterations in the past so just a reference to the above question will work just fine.
 
You serious ? You do know your putting a non TSOd part that has WiFi, ADSB IN, no STC, It would be considered a SUP suspect unapproved part. That is not on the STC OR TYPE CERTIFICATE with no ICA. Grey area with approved or acceptable data. Feel free to install it..... I would love to know what data you are using as would the FAA. As an IA you may not have it long. No matter what your doing a 337... major repair or ALTERATION.
 
Skysensor is an ADS-B In receiver for 1090 mhz and 978 mhz with a waas gps module. So you get traffic and weather, plus a matching position light and strobe. All this for $750...the current experimental price.

A Stratus is less expensive with more features...minus the lights.

I would rather have a Sentry with AHRS and a CO monitor mounted inside the cabin for $300 less.
 
Paveslave53 said:
You serious ?
Click to expand...
Ha. Dead serious. Since this subject has been discussed on PoA repeatedly, plus you've been all over the place with your replies, I'll Just reply to a couple of your inaccuracies for now....
Paveslave53 said:
putting a non TSOd part...
Click to expand...
A person needs a TSOA if they chose to produce, i.e., manufacture, a part for sale/use on a TC'd aircraft; or they are performing a part replacement, i.e., remove Part A and install 3rd party Part A. No TSOA required for person performing a major/minor alteration per FAR Part 43.
Paveslave53 said:
It would be considered a SUP suspect unapproved part.
Click to expand...
Not hardly. Suggest you review AC again.
Paveslave53 said:
As an IA you may not have it long...
Click to expand...
Well, hate to disappoint you, but been doing mx this way for quite some time with zero issues from the feds whether they're at the FSDO, MIDO, or ACO. It's how I learned how the system really works. ;)

As for my IA, I turned that back in years ago as I got tired of the hassles it took to keep it current. Curious, you a AP/IA yourself?
 
Ditto on the hard to get field approvals here in NC. I made the mistake of installing a stainless steel battery box in my old Bonanza a few years ago....the alteration improved the weight and balance, plus it placed the battery in the same location as in earlier models...what an ordeal and stack of paperwork....this was 20 years ago.
 
I am, been doing this since I was 14, I have had to sit in the office in a FSDO and explain my side to the FAA. We do nothing but modifications..... taking green aircraft and installing mods all over the world on certified aircraft going back and fourth with the FAA, but you know what your going to read it however you want. It doesn’t matter to me what your opinion is. My FSDO saw it as a major alteration and decided to give me a field approval. So if you want facts....... I have approved data for a major alteration by the FAA For the installation of a sky sensor. You have your opinion.
 
Paveslave53 said:
I am, been doing this since I was 14, I have had to sit in the office in a FSDO and explain my side to the FAA. We do nothing but modifications..... taking green aircraft and installing mods all over the world on certified aircraft going back and fourth with the FAA, but you know what your going to read it however you want. It doesn’t matter to me what your opinion is. My FSDO saw it as a major alteration and decided to give me a field approval. So if you want facts....... I have approved data for a major alteration by the FAA For the installation of a sky sensor. You have your opinion.
Click to expand...
Would you mind sharing the 337 for an example?
 
Food for thought...we are all so concerned about TSO approval on a Skysensor or other small device, but how are most GoPro cameras attached to the wings and tails of these aircraft we regularly see on Youtube ? Is GoPro TSO’ed ?
 
Paveslave53 said:
I am, been doing this since I was 14, I have had to sit in the office in a FSDO and explain my side to the FAA. We do nothing but modifications..... taking green aircraft and installing mods all over the world on certified aircraft going back and fourth with the FAA, but you know what your going to read it however you want. It doesn’t matter to me what your opinion is. My FSDO saw it as a major alteration and decided to give me a field approval. So if you want facts....... I have approved data for a major alteration by the FAA For the installation of a sky sensor. You have your opinion.
Click to expand...
My opinion comes from my A&P/IA that I've had for 50 years or so ... as well as bending wrenches on airplanes since I was about 14 also. Everything from hang gliders to airline 737s.. Your opinion comes from?

You don't go back and fourth with the FAA, or back and third, or back and second. You mean back and forth?

And by the way, you don't need a TSO to produce a part for aircraft. You need PMA or equivalent. TSO refers to the specifications of the equipment.



Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top