Agree 1000%
Bill
A&P/IA
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] TSO'd vs Non TSO'd instruments: another view
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:15:48 -0600 (MDT)
>----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any advice in this forum.]----
>
>
>Don't blame you Al. You're correct - Yes and No is probably THE answer.
>That said, and my having done more than just one or two radio
>installations, here's some food for thought......
>If you think you might possibly ever sell your plane in the future, then
>my suggestion is to submit a 337 whether or not the instrument or radio or
>installation, etc. is STC'd, TSO'd or not. It may or may not require a
>Field Approval, but it's nice to have the 337 on file and in the records.
>I seen - for good reason - poor records and logbook entries drive down the
>seller's asking price a considerable amount on more than one aircraft.
>Aircraft with meticulous records/logbook entries usually sell for more. I
>know a lot of wannabe renegades say the less you put in the logbooks, the
>less the feds have to use against you, but I've found just the opposite to
>be true. Detailed entries and records have kept me out of trouble and have
>helped expedite things on more than one occasion.
>
>On another note, here's a tip that might be worthwhile:
>
>With the way the FAA now has their website set up and it being fairly
>constantly updated, one might be able to save oneself some money by doing
>the research and investigation into whatever
>installation/alteration/repair/AD compliance/whatever is being done and
>have it all laid out and available to the IA beforehand when getting ready
>to submit a 337. The IA, of course, will have to confirm all the
>information, etc., persented, but it could save several hours of billing
>time. Saving the IA some legwork - maintenance records and logbook entries
>come into play here - could make a difference of several hundred buckaroos
>to the owner/operator. I know of one case (I wasn't involved) recently
>where the aircraft owner was upset because he was presented with a bill
>for eight hours of time (the IA actually spent over TWICE that researching
>and confirming compliance, etc.) due to poor records and logbook entries.
>
>Just some food for thought........
>
>Tom
>
>
>
> > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
> > advice in this forum.]----
> >
> >
> > I really wanted to stay out of this one again, but folks just keep
> > bringing it up waiting to hear a particular answer. If you want the
> > truth, then it's NO, you don't need TSO'd instruments to operate part 91,
> > but if you want to complicate things, then the answer is YES. I ain't
> > sayin' any more about this.
> >
> > Al DeMarzo
> > Visit the Ercoupe Swap Page - Free and Easy
> > http://www.ercoupeowners.com/swap/swapbook.htm
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hartmut Beil
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 10:04 AM
> > Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] TSO'd vs Non TSO'd instruments: another view
> >
> >
> > ----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before following any
> > advice in this forum.]----
> >
> >
> > Ok .
> > This thread started as inquiry of whether instruments need to be TSO'd
> > in an Ercoupe.
> >
> > I searched the web a bit and found no definite statements on whether
> > TSO'd instruments are required in our birds.
> > What it boils down to though is that the original certification is the
> > guide here.
> > If originally TSO's instruments are listed, these have to go in or a
> > request be filed for a as good or better substitute.
> >
> > It is my understanding that TSO was an unknown in the forties and
> > fifties, so there you go, you only have to install an airspeed meter
> > that is as good as the one that the coupe was delivered with.
> > This could also include non-TSO'd instruments. I was told by an
> > instrument shop that the non-TSO instruments are sometimes of even a
> > better quality, just without a TSO. ( The UMA airspeed meter - TSO'd -
> > is crap and a throw-away instrument by the way)
> > This is only true for the basic instrumentation.
> >
> > If it comes to radios, transponders etc , different rules are in place.
> >
> > Transponders for example have to be TSO'd - all of them, as required per
> > law - and the installation should be noted with a 337 I think.
> > Radios might follow a different standard. I assume that a non TSO'd
> > radio will do as good as a TSO's one in our coupes since there is no
> > radio listed in our original certification. But here again I would
> > suggest a 337 to be recorded with the FAA.
> > This is at least common practice.
> >
> > Hartmut
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: WILLIAM BIGGS
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; [email protected]
> > Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 3:39 PM
> > Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] TSO'd vs Non TSO'd instruments: another
> > view
> >
> >
> > How about the instructions for continued airworthiness.
> >
> > The new electrical load?
> >
> > Bill
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > From: Dan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Reply-To: Dan Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: Ctech <[email protected]>
> > Subject: Re: [COUPERS-TECH] TSO'd vs Non TSO'd instruments: another
> > view
> > Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:28:59 -0500
> > >----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before
> > >following any advice in this forum.]----
> > >
> > >
> > >I think some of the confusion may be between the work that the
> > >aircraft owner can do as preventative maintenance, the work that an
> > >AI can sign off with a log book entry as a minor change, and the
> > >major work that requires a 337 or FAA field approval. This is a
> > >seperate issue from the TSO vs non TSO'd instruments.
> > >
> > >My understanding is that work on a non structural panel, such as
> > >installing radios, requires only a log book entry and recording of
> > >the new weight and balance data by an AI.
> > >
> > >Dan Brown
> > >
> > >
> > >John Roach wrote:
> > >
> > >>----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before
> > >>following any advice in this forum.]----
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>Lynn.
> > >>Another view of the TSO puzzle from Bill Biggs. See below
> > >>
> > >>John Roach
> > >>N 2427H
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> RE: [COUPERS-TECH] Answers Re: TSO/Non-TSO
> > >>
> > >>WILLIAM BIGGS
> > >>Fri, 12 Jan 2007 06:08:23 -0800
> > >>
> > >>"5) You may not even need a 337. Those forms address the
> > >>installation process, NOT the radio itself, and are only needed at
> > >>all IF the installation involves a "major structural change."
> > >>Putting the radio into an existing hole, or hanging it beneath the
> > >>panel does NOT need a 337. Similarly, if you're putting a new
> > >>antenna into an existing antenna mount location, its not a "major
> > >>structural change," therefore no 337 needed. "
> > >>
> > >>Not true. Example: If you change from your cessna radio to a
> > >>Michael. It goes in exactly the same location but we all know they
> > >>require a 337. Hanging an additional radio beneath the panel
> > >>constitutes a change in weight and ballance however small and must
> > >>be recorded.
> > >>
> > >>337s now require a provision for "continued airworthiness."
> > >>Anything that is not in the airframe or engine specifications that
> > >>is added or changed constitutes a major alteration unless
> > >>specifically excluded in part 43.1.
> > >>
> > >>The following is considered preventative maint and is allowed but
> > >>only of the EXACT type:
> > >>
> > >>(31) Removing and replacing self-contained, front instrument
> > >>panel-mounted navigation and communication devices that employ
> > >>tray-mounted connectors that connect the unit when the unit is
> > >>installed into the instrument panel, (excluding automatic flight
> > >>control systems, transponders, and microwave frequency distance
> > >>measuring equipment (DME)). The approved unit must be
> > >>designed to be readily and repeatedly removed and replaced, and
> > >>pertinent instructions must be provided. Prior to the unit's
> > >>intended use, and operational check must be performed in
> > accordance
> > >>with the applicable sections of part 91 of this chapter.
> > >>(32) Updating self-contained, front instrument panel-mounted Air
> > >>Traffic Control (ATC) navigational software data bases (excluding
> > >>those of automatic flight control systems, transponders, and
> > >>microwave frequency distance measuring equipment (DME)) provided
> > no
> > >>disassembly of the unit is required and pertinent instructions are
> > >>provided. Prior to the unit's intended use, an operational check
> > >>must be performed in accordance with applicable sections of part
> > 91
> > >>of this chapter.
> > >>
> > >>Appendix A
> > >>
> > >>Sec. A43.1
> > >>
> > >>(a) /Major alterations/--
> > >>(1) /Airframe major alterations./ Alterations of the following
> > >>parts and alterations of the following types, _when not listed in
> > >>the aircraft specifications issued by the FAA_, are airframe major
> > >>alterations:
> > >>
> > >>Bill
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>----[Please read http://ercoupers.com/disclaimer.htm before
> > >>>following any advice in this forum.]----
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Hey Gang: Some time ago we had a discussion about TSO'd and
> > non
> > >>>TSO'd instrument requirements. As I remember, one of our group
> > >>>came up with the FAA paragraph's that specifically spelled out
> > the
> > >>>use of those items. I saved the message, but unfortunately for
> > me,
> > >>>my computer bombed last fall, and I lost all of the saved
> > messages
> > >>>before then.
> > >>> I have reviewed most of last years Tech messages, and did
> > not
> > >>>find what I was looking for. Does anyone have the answer? I know
> > >>>there was considerable discussion about radios. but I am
> > >>>specifically concerned about instruments.
> > >>>Lynn
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>>AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's
> > >>>free from AOL at *AOL.com*
> > >>><http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000339>.
> > >>>=============================================================================
> > >>>
> > >>>To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>=============================================================================
> > >>
> > >>To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >=============================================================================
> > >To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > =============================================================================To
> > leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > =============================================================================To
> > leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>==============================================================================
>To leave this forum go to: http://ercoupers.com/lists.htm
>
>
>
