Hi Eliacim,
Ercoupe ownership changes pretty often (on average five years), and also
change "base of operations" as to the "local" FSDO.
There is no regulation requiring owners to have anything installed in
their
bird re-reviewed by such "new" FSDO as to acceptability or legality.
For this reason, anyone can tell the local FSDO to "pound sand" if they
try to
question an installation previously legal or approved elsewhere. An
FSDO
cannot on their own recognizance attempt to answer a question no one has
asked, and their "ramp check" criteria cannot question practices legal
and/or
approved elsewhere.
A good example is a bird with a split elevator already approved by 337
that
moves into a "local" FSDO that refuses to approve such an installation.
Of course I agree completely with your mathematical formula ;<)
WRB
--
On Mar 10, 2009, at 00:42, heavensounds wrote:
Ed
What Al is saying is that his particular FSDO says a transponder can
not be certified for the encoding check if the altimeter does not meet
the TSO standards. Perhaps that makes sense for an IFR transponder
certification, but not for a VFR transponder certification?
Regardless of what makes sense, and regardless of what the regulations
say, in the real world, the interpretation of the local FSDO is what
rules.
I am not saying that's correct, nor that I agree. It's just reality.
If your local FSDO says you need TSO'd instruments in a particular
application, you better have TSO'd instruments, even if the
regulations don't support that.
This is the mathematical formula. Bureaucrats + power = abuse.
Eliacim
