Paul, Essentially, that's what I said. But I would still like that PMI or Engineering office to show me where the FARs require TSO or PMA instruments if they are not required on the Type Certificate. It may be a "policy" but it's not a regulatory requirement.
Dave --- In [email protected], "Paul M. Anton" <pman...@...> wrote: > > > > > I'd welcome a discussion of any different opinions based on FACT, not > word-of-mouth ("My mechanic or FBO told me it has to be TSO..." "The catalog > says it's non-TSO, for Experimental Aircraft Only" are hearsay, IMO). Also, > I'd love to hear from A.I.'s with different opinions and how they arrived at > them. > > > > Despite what the regulations might state, sometimes other factors enter into > the equation. When I was supervised by the Seattle FSDO I had a very liberal > Primary Maintenance Inspector. He granted me many field approvals that other > were having problem pushing through the system > > > > Now when I mentioned that I was overseeing restoration of an Ercoupe and we > were going to be using some non-TSO'd stuff he actually blanched. No amount > of reason was going to change his mind. When I pressed the issue he referred > me to engineering. So what was I to do? No way was I going to press the > issue. While I might have argued that I was right, I'd never get another 337 > approved. > > > > Now that I have moved to Arizona, and am supervised by another FSDO, I will > probably have an entirely different set of rules to adhere to. > > > > Cheers: > > > > Paul > > N1431A > > 2AZ1 > > > > A&P IA >
