Seems there would be a difference on whether you replaced the
original equipment (what little there was) vs
adding additional equipment. If you leave the original equipment you
should still be legal for VFR and the
additional equipment doesn't affect the airworthiness of the plane.
(I realize I am trying to add logic to the
equation which is not in the FAA dictionary.)
Dan C
On May 10, 2008, at 1:11 AM, ronblackink wrote:
OK, if you were to, ...say, put a compatible certified-equipment
glass panel (for other aircraft) into an Ercoupe, is there a problem
getting license if nobody signs off on it? (assuming proper
installation, etc.) Is it a 337 that's needed, and what are the
perameters that might cause a 337 not to be needed? This is all
hypothetical - just trying to understand. We're talking all VFR here.
Now, then the same type of glass panel, but not certified --for use
in experimental aircraft. Again, nobody signs off on it. Is a 337
going to let you get licensed the next time (annual)? Is the
inspector that signs off an annual hanging himself out here, so he
won't sign off for the new license?
I guess I'm easily confused, but this talk of Ercoupe not having
certain equipment specified, so it is possible to install non-
specified equipment with no approval - makes me question my
assumptions.
I am assuming the above problem would first show up when the next
annual inspection comes due - is that correct?
And what is this rumor that FAA is not allowing new 337's for field
approvals any more? I guess its a rumor...
-Ron
