What it means is that you should have been looking out the window instead of 
looking at the altimeter.

Kevin1

--- In [email protected], Caliendo Dan <djcalie...@...> wrote:
>
> Good point, John; but does that mean I'm not to blame if I hit the  
> Bonanza
> head on in my experimental or ultralight with the same non-tso'd  
> altimeter?
> dan
> 
> On Mar 10, 2009, at 1:44 PM, John Cooper wrote:
> 
> > I have remained mute on this subject up till now because I really  
> > don't know
> > what the answer is. And I hate to admit that...
> >
> > However, here's my opinion....
> >
> > The altimeter is a required instrument, per FAR 91.205. Therefore,  
> > it must
> > meet some minimum criteria. For example, you could not install a Timex
> > watch with an altimeter function, even though it read out in feet.  
> > Neither
> > could you install one you got from Sharper Image for your car, even  
> > if it
> > cost more than the TSO version.
> >
> > The Erco drawing calls for an Aeromarine 520N altimeter. So, for  
> > sure, that
> > is a suitable instrument. Obviously, it was not TSO'd as the  
> > concept didn't
> > exist then. So, what constitutes a suitable replacement? Or, put  
> > another
> > way, is the Chin Wah altimeter from Aircraft Goose for $200 a suitable
> > replacement? The answer is "it's up to the installer", I think.
> > Ultimately, the A&P who signs off the install, or, absent that, the  
> > IA who
> > signs off the next annual, (or the last annual if you as the owner  
> > sneak the
> > thing in between annuals) will be held responsible for it. Now,  
> > lets assume
> > you are involved in a mid air collision with an oncoming IFR  
> > Bonanza at 6000
> > feet. The wreckage of you plane reveals a Chin Wah altimeter stuck  
> > at 5500.
> > Who's to blame?
> >
> > Bottom line, If I'm installing that altimeter, I want some  
> > assurance it is
> > an aircraft quality part. The TSO is that insurance. Your IA may  
> > view it
> > differently, assuming he knows what he's looking at...
> >
> > John Cooper
> > Skyport Services
> > www.skyportservices.net
> >
> >
> >
>


Reply via email to