What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Frequently Asked Questions - VFR/IFR Certification

Walt

Well Known Member
Today I did a transponder check for an RV owner that had been flying without the required checks, he was under the impression that as the builder he was allowed to "certify" his own VFR/IFR tests. This is not the first time this has come up so I thought I would post this info as a "refresher". I copied this from my FAQ page on my site so it's there for your reference anytime you need it. Glad to answer any questions as well.

What are the rules for Experimental aircraft on Transponder, Altimeter, Altitude Encoder and Static System checks?
Experimental aircraft must comply with ATC transponder, automatic altitude reporting and altimeter/static system installation and certifications per 14 CFR 91.215, 91.217 and 91.413 (43-F), you must also comply with 91.411 (43-E) if you fly IFR.

I thought part 43 was not applicable to Experimental Aircraft?
Your aircraft Ops Spec requires that the aircraft be operated in accordance with Part 91 as applicable. Part 91 then directs you to Part 43 Appendix E & F for the testing requirements. So in this case, Part 43 does apply to experimental aircaft.

What inspections are required for VFR operations?
The aircraft transponder must be certified every 24 months in accordance with the requirements of CFR. 91.413. Transponder testing is accomplished in accordance with Part 43 Appendix F.

Note: For new certifications or if the encoder or altimeter has been replaced, a Data Correspondence Check must be accomplished to ensure the altitude data transmitted to ATC corresponds to within 125 feet of the altimeter normally used to maintain flight altitude per CFR 91.217.

What inspections are required for IFR operations?
In addition to the 24 month transponder certification above, the altimeter, altitude encoder and static system must be inspected and certified every 24 months in accordance with CFR 91.411. CFR. 43, Appendix E. details the test requirements.

Who can perform these inspections?
With a few exceptions, only a FAA Certified Repair Stations (CRS) with the appropriate ratings may perform the inspections required by FAR 91.411 and 91.413.

Can a builder with a repairman certificate for the aircraft he built perform his own altimeter, static or transponder certifications?
No. Although the CFR's do authorize the "manufacturer" of the aircraft to conduct the tests, the builder of an amateur-built aircraft does not meet the FAA's definition of a "manufacturer" In addition, specialized test equipment certified to NIST standards is required to perform these tests and certifications.

If I remove my transponder and re-install it do I have to repeat the 91.413 test? How about if I replace the transponder with a newer model or a repaired (yellow tagged) unit, do I have to repeat the 91.413 tests?
Removal and replacement of transponder units, subsequent to testing a system in accordance with ? 91.413, will not invalidate the test results. A repaired or replacement transponder may be installed without repeating ? 91.413 testing; however, a manufacturer?s minimum performance test will be performed before return to service. Any time the aircraft connections to a transponder have been removed and reconnected, each altitude reporting code line (in the case of the newer aircraft, the digital data bus) must be tested for integrity of connection. Integrity of connection for systems using a digital data bus to convey altitude information to a transponder may be verified by successful reporting of a single altitude. Integrity of connection for systems using Gillham code connections may be verified by performing an abbreviated correspondence test at the test points of Appendix 1, Table 1 using the installed automatic pressure altitude encoding device or through the use of an encoder substation test unit capable of simulation of the Appendix 1, Table 1 altitudes.
 
Can a builder with a repairman certificate for the aircraft he built perform his own altimeter, static or transponder certifications?
No. Although the CFR's do authorize the "manufacturer" of the aircraft to conduct the tests, the builder of an amateur-built aircraft does not meet the FAA's definition of a "manufacturer" In addition, specialized test equipment certified to NIST standards is required to perform these tests and certifications.

Walt - I don't really mean to argue the point, since (almost) none of us would have the NIST-traceable equipment to do the test anyway - but I would point out that the FAA recognizes us as "manufacturer" for all other aspects, including the dataplate on the aircraft. A good case could be made there. If the Gummint-Issued dataplate says I'm the manufacturer, then I'm the manufacturer.

Yeah, yeah - I know. Just pointing out inconsistencies in the system...
 
FAA Definitions (I think these make it pretty clear):

Manufacturer. A person who causes a product or part thereof to be produced. See Production Approval Holder (PAH). For FAA purposes, ?manufacturer? and ?PAH? are used interchangeably. A manufacturer is a PAH.

Production Approval Holder. A holder of a production certificate (PC), an approved production inspection system (APIS), a parts manufacturer approval (PMA), or a technical standard order (TSO) authorization who controls the design and quality of a product or part thereof.
 
If no avionics shop is at the airport, or within the fly area for phase I testing, what is a builder to do?:

I would think that you'd complete your Phase I (a certfied pitot/static system and transponder are not required for that as you're restricted to day VFR ops), stay out of airspace that requires a transponder, then plan a trip to the nearest shop that can perform the tests and complete the certifications. You'll then be able to operate in all airspace categories, and fly night VFR and/or IFR assuming that 91.205 requirements are met, as applicable.
 
Last edited:
Good subject Walt thanks for bringing it up. I've had a discussion with a builder recently and we argued about that. Now I am armed with facts :)
 
91.207(d) also needed

One item that the repairman / A&P of a two seat EXPERIMENTAL must also do every 12-months is inspect and test the ELT in accordance with 91.207(d). Since all inspections and maintenance must be recorded in the maintenance records according to the Operating Limitations, it also must be recorded.

This is a very common issue found on Amateur Built Aircraft. Yes you must test the G-Switch. You do not need to BANG the ELT on anything. Just swing in in the proper direction and stop quickly.
 
What if?

Walt,

The company I use to work for has all the equipment for testing the IFR aircraft that they maintain for Part 135 operations. The avionics guy brings out this certified equipment and we both do the required tests as outlined in Part 43 and the Dynon Skyview installation manual. Am I not legal? Thanks for your time
 
Walt,

The company I use to work for has all the equipment for testing the IFR aircraft that they maintain for Part 135 operations. The avionics guy brings out this certified equipment and we both do the required tests as outlined in Part 43 and the Dynon Skyview installation manual. Am I not legal? Thanks for your time

While Walt is certainly on point, this is one of the specific gray areas that in my experience over the years does indeed vary from region to region. If you do this for enough years you'll eventually see so many various interpretations from different individuals (some of them are dumber than a bag of hair) of the regs that you'll find there is rarely an absolute answer. I've actually seen a letter from an FAA ASI to a customer that told him if he had the appropriate certified equipment he could do the test. In this specific case he used the "mfgr" as stated on the data plate as his justification. I offered to rent my equipment to the customer for the same price as we charge for a pitot/static/txpdr check!

Anyway, I'm not saying either way is right or is wrong but rather this is like many things with the FAA - it's rarely an absolute and instead is open to interpretation. Heck, there is still people arguing about AD's on experimentals! :)

Cheers,
Stein
 
Dfechter: There is no requirement for using your transponder unless you are within airspace requiring it, such as Class B or C. If you are at a smaller airport, just leave the transponder off, and fly to the place to get the check done (presuming it is also at a smaller airport). Once it has passed the test, then you can freely turn it on and use it.

If you are in airspace that requires it, you might be able to contact them to get a waiver to fly it out for the check, or some technicians will come to your plane to do the check.
 
Static /Transponder Check

Hello Stein

''the same price as we charge for a pitot/static/txpdr check!''

What is the current/ average price for someone with a Skyview/Garmin TXPR in the USA?

I just wanna compare with what we pay here in Canada...:eek::eek:

Thanks

Bruno
 
I think I paid the local (KLVK - San Francisco area) guy $250 for my pitot-static check (Dynon, GRT, Garmin xponder). He does travel to other airports in the area, he says he has to to generate enough business to pay for the frequently required calibration of his test rigs.

He says that he seldom finds equipment failures. The usual problems are related to leaks in the lines, at joints, connections, alternate air valves, etc. Especially in new systems.

His prices are like automotive "shop rates". He includes some time for trouble shooting leaks in his rate, I think it was one or two hours, and it averages out ("lucky" customers don't need any, unlucky customers get a couple of hours of extra labor).

As to the debate: I looked into this, it was so expensive to maintain the test equipment that it didn't even make sense if it was shared among all the local EAA guys, so this is just an academic argument. But I don't see how the FAA could claim the builder isn't the manufacturer. After all if not the builder, then who? Does the FAA claim there is no manufacturer? The FAA has us put our name everywhere it asks for "manufacturer", we are authorized to fabricate parts, etc. But as Stein said, it depends on who you ask.
 
Hello Stein

''the same price as we charge for a pitot/static/txpdr check!''

What is the current/ average price for someone with a Skyview/Garmin TXPR in the USA?

I just wanna compare with what we pay here in Canada...:eek::eek:

Thanks

Bruno

Typically in most metropolitan areas for full time shops VFR checks go for around $100 +/- and IFR for around $300 +/-. Part time guys doing it as a hobby often charge less.....

Cheers,
Stein
 
Walt,

The company I use to work for has all the equipment for testing the IFR aircraft that they maintain for Part 135 operations. The avionics guy brings out this certified equipment and we both do the required tests as outlined in Part 43 and the Dynon Skyview installation manual. Am I not legal? Thanks for your time

I know if you asked the guys at my FSDO they would say no you can't, the definition of a manufacturer is pretty clear which you do not meet as a experimental aircraft "builder". One of the key missing ingredients is a manufacturer has FAA oversight with approved methods, processes, QA, etc., you do not.
 
TXPR/STATIC Test

Thanks a lot for the reply guys..

I knew we were getting it again around here as usual..I was quoted over $500.00:eek: by 2 different shops in my area..

In Canada now, there is no difference between the 2 checks..It used to be for VFR that a TXPR check was the only thing required but now they ( MOT ) standardized the process and a TXPR/Static/pitot check is required for VFR/IFR no difference..

Thanks

Bruno
 
Transponder ON

I don't have my copy of FAR's with me as I write but I am sure that if you have a transponder installed in your a/c it must be working properly and in the ON position while in flight. It is not the pilots prerogative to turn it off while in the air. I would think if you did not have it tested you could remove it from the a/c, label it as removed, and make a note and weight and balance entry in the logbook. You then could fly outside of the airspace that requires a transponder (Class A & B and mode C veil around class B) until you have the opportunity to have it checked and re-installed.
Craig
 
Phase one area request

When you are completing the forms for your airworthiness inspection, there is a paragraph where you can request a larger than usual phase 1 area, or an odd shaped area. If there is a shop relatively nearby, request your phase I area include that field and the area between it and your base. You have to justify any deviations, so the justification here is pretty simple: FAA -required Pitot/Static and Transponder inspection/certification. This, of course, does not necessarily mean you'll get it included, but you may. I did.
 
I don't have my copy of FAR's with me as I write but I am sure that if you have a transponder installed in your a/c it must be working properly and in the ON position while in flight. It is not the pilots prerogative to turn it off while in the air. I would think if you did not have it tested you could remove it from the a/c, label it as removed, and make a note and weight and balance entry in the logbook. You then could fly outside of the airspace that requires a transponder (Class A & B and mode C veil around class B) until you have the opportunity to have it checked and re-installed.
Craig

Not true, excluding operations in Class A, B, or C airspace and above 10000 MSL according to 91.213, Inoperative instruments and equipment:

(d) Except for operations conducted in accordance with paragraph (a) or (c) of this section, a person may takeoff an aircraft in operations conducted under this part with inoperative instruments and equipment without an approved Minimum Equipment List provided—

(1) The flight operation is conducted in a

(i) Rotorcraft, non-turbine-powered airplane, glider, lighter-than-air aircraft, powered parachute, or weight-shift-control aircraft, for which a master minimum equipment list has not been developed; or

(ii) Small rotorcraft, nonturbine-powered small airplane, glider, or lighter-than-air aircraft for which a Master Minimum Equipment List has been developed; and

(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not

(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;

(ii) Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;

(iii) Required by §91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or

(iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive; and

(3) The inoperative instruments and equipment are

(i) Removed from the aircraft, the cockpit control placarded, and the maintenance recorded in accordance with §43.9 of this chapter; or
(ii) Deactivated and placarded “Inoperative.” If deactivation of the inoperative instrument or equipment involves maintenance, it must be accomplished and recorded in accordance with part 43 of this chapter
 
Last edited:
Transponder ON

Sec. 91.215 ? ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.


(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with ?91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.


Here is the spot I was thinking of. It does say you must have the transponder on in all controlled airspace. You could interpret it to say that if you don't maintain it properly you don't have to have it on. In that case you would still have to have it labeled as inop on the panel and make an entry in the log stating so. If you were operating the a/c in controlled airspace with the transponder off and not labeled as inoperative - I believe you would be in violation of this reg.
Craig
 
You could interpret it to say that if you don't maintain it properly you don't have to have it on.

In fact, that is exactly the way it is interpreted. I don't have the reg in front of me, but if the transponder hasn't had its checks, I believe you aren't supposed to turn it on at all in flight.

-Dj
 
Certification checks

Walt,
The company I use to work for has all the equipment for testing the IFR aircraft that they maintain for Part 135 operations. The avionics guy brings out this certified equipment and we both do the required tests as outlined in Part 43 and the Dynon Skyview installation manual. Am I not legal? Thanks for your time
The guy who does my cert check comes to the hangar - we arrange a bunch of folks at the airport to do it on the same day to make it worth his time and we get a decent deal (~$200 IIRC). Each owner 'helps' as requested, mostly making sure he has as easy as possible access to the instruments, and providing serial numbers.
He and his equipment are certified (of course) so it sounds like the same scenario. He puts a sticker in my log with all the appropriate info and signatures. He does everything from biz jets to Luscombe's this way.
 
Sec. 91.215 — ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.


(c) Transponder-on operation. While in the airspace as specified in paragraph (b) of this section or in all controlled airspace, each person operating an aircraft equipped with an operable ATC transponder maintained in accordance with §91.413 of this part shall operate the transponder, including Mode C equipment if installed, and shall reply on the appropriate code or as assigned by ATC.

Here is the spot I was thinking of. It does say you must have the transponder on in all controlled airspace. You could interpret it to say that if you don't maintain it properly you don't have to have it on. In that case you would still have to have it labeled as inop on the panel and make an entry in the log stating so. If you were operating the a/c in controlled airspace with the transponder off and not labeled as inoperative - I believe you would be in violation of this reg.
Craig

I disagree. It says as specified in para b, which defines the applicable airspace as Class A, B, or C and the airspace above 10000 MSL. It goes further to identify some caveats that state you can operate under a Class B shelf, within the 30 mile mode C veil, etc, in para (3) if the system has not been certified. I would suggest that, in conjunction with para 91.213 would allow for the equipment to remain installed during Phase I, but inop as long as all operations remain clear of Class A, B, and C airspace and below 10000 MSL.
 
CB

Just received A/W certificate. Inspector said I cannot turn on my transponder until I get it certified, but I am able to complete phase I testing within local airport boundaries and he gave me a way to get out from under our Class B with a 25nm radius. This means I can complete phase I outside of 30nm veil and Class B w/o transponder.
 
Can a builder with a repairman certificate for the aircraft he built perform his own altimeter, static or transponder certifications?
No. Although the CFR's do authorize the "manufacturer" of the aircraft to conduct the tests, the builder of an amateur-built aircraft does not meet the FAA's definition of a "manufacturer"

Manufacturer. A person who causes a product or part thereof to be produced. See Production Approval Holder (PAH). For FAA purposes, “manufacturer” and “PAH” are used interchangeably. A manufacturer is a PAH.

Hi Walt,
Where did you find this definition of "Manufacturer"?

I've been poking through the FAA docs, and the only FAA official definition I can find is in Order 8130.2G, page E-3, which says simply:

"Manufacturer. A person who causes a product or article thereof to be produced."

If you look at a Certificate of Aircraft Registration, it lists the builder in the box labeled "Manufacturer".

This would seem to imply that a builder (ie "manufacturer") could indeed perform the tests if they used the proper testing equipment.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

-Dj
 
Last edited:
Walt's answer is exactly how FAA Headquarters has interpreted the subject matter. This has been brought up many times in the DAR seminars.
 
Ditto on Me's response.

Just for the record, the "appropriate equipment" is only one tiny portion of the overall requirement for those checks. I suppose you could try to wrangle your way into being a "mfgr" on paper, but then with these specific checks let's not forget you have to have calibrated equipment (which is likely the easiest part here), up to date manuals, and recorded/audited/approved procedures - in writing, training records, equipment records, etc.. (from the FAA) to still go and perform the actual checks. The paperwork you'd need behind you to do it would more than offset the $100 savings you'll have by doing this yourself. Even the Mfgr's have to have approved procedures, manuals, training records, etc.. specific to each process they perform.

Lastly, you'd have to actually find FAA persons at a MIDO and FSDO to agree with you on doing this....which would likely be a "challenge" in my opinion.

Just my 2 cents as usual.

Cheers,
Stein
 
Walt's answer is exactly how FAA Headquarters has interpreted the subject matter. This has been brought up many times in the DAR seminars.

Hi Mel,
Thank you for your reply. I'm not actually trying to to a transponder check myself. At our recent EAA meeting, one of the members said he was the manufacturer of his aircraft and could legally do these tests (given the proper equipment and training), and I replied that in the eyes of the FAA he wasn't, based on Walt's post and others that I've found.

However, I cannot find any official FAA documentation that says that he is not the manufacturer, and in fact what I can find does support his claim.

Do you have any references to official FAA documentation that clarifies this?

Thank you,

-Dj
 


Good idea. It looks like the FAA *does* consider the builder to be the manufacturer:

"With respect to your question as to who is considered the "manufacturer" of an amateur-built aircraft certificated under ?21.191 (g), the FAA considers
the person (or persons) who fabricated and assembled the major portion of
the aircraft to be the aircraft's "manufacturer" or "builder." This person is listed as the aircraft builder on FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate, and as the aircraft manufacturer on the AC
Form 8050-1, Aircraft Registration Application."

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2010/atkins - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf

This implies that you could indeed do the transponder checks in accordance with FAR 91.43(c).

Thanks!

-Dj
 
The FAR?s authorize the "manufacturer" of the aircraft to conduct the tests However, the builder of an amateur-built aircraft does not meet the FAA?s definition of a manufacturer. The FAA, in Order 8130.2, defines a manufacturer as a Production Approval Holder (PAH). Some examples of a PAH would be the holder of a Production Certificate (PC), a Parts Manufacturing Authority (PMA), and Technical Standards Order Authorization (TSOA). An amateur builder does not fit this definition. Thus, the amateur-builder cannot perform the transponder and pitot/static tests on his/her homebuilt.

Sure you can do your own tests... just don't get caught :D
 
The FAA, in Order 8130.2, defines a manufacturer as a Production Approval Holder (PAH).

As far as I can find, in order 8130.2G, page E-3 (actual page 315) the FAA defines a manufacturer as "A person who causes a product or article thereof to be
produced." It does not define a manufacturer as a PAH.

Can you please show me where in Order 8130.2G that it defines a manufacturer as a PAH? I spent quite some time searching through the PDF file for every occurrence of the word "manufacturer", and the above is the only definition I can find for it.

Here is the link to Order 8130.2G:
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8130.2G.pdf

-Dj
 
Last edited:
The definition I have is:
Manufacturer. A person who causes a product or part thereof to be produced. See Production Approval Holder (PAH). For FAA purposes, “manufacturer” and “PAH” are used interchangeably. A manufacturer is a PAH.

Maybe that was an older 8130.2, don't recall.

Trust me though, you will lose the battle with the FAA on self certification of P-S/transponder systems
 
Last edited:
Bear in mind that none of us on this end are really interested in doing our own transponder checks. As I mentioned the other day, this came up as a topic of discussion at a recent EAA meeting, and one gentleman proclaimed that since he was the manufacturer, he could legally do the checks (but everyone present agreed it would not be practical to do so). I disagreed with him and said that the term "manufacturer" in this sense did not mean the same thing as "builder", following similar logic that Walt presented in this forum a couple of years ago. I sought to find the "proof" of my claims and starting researching FAA documentation.

To recap, the latest version of FAA Order 8130.2G, page E-3 (actual page 315) defines a manufacturer as "A person who causes a product or article thereof to be produced."

This would seem to include builders as we are causing an aircraft to be produced through our labors.

The FAA legal counsel seems to agree with this, since in a letter dated Feb 2010 they say (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2010/atkins - (2010) legal interpretation.pdf)

"With respect to your question as to who is considered the "manufacturer" of an amateur-built aircraft certificated under ?21.191 (g), the FAA considers
the person (or persons) who fabricated and assembled the major portion of
the aircraft to be the aircraft's "manufacturer" or "builder." This person is listed as the aircraft builder on FAA Form 8130-6, Application for U.S. Airworthiness Certificate, and as the aircraft manufacturer on the AC Form 8050-1, Aircraft Registration Application."

Ok, so the builder *is* the manufacturer according to the FAA, thus it follows in FAR 91.43(c):

(c) The tests and inspections specified in this section must be
conducted by?
...
(3) The manufacturer of the aircraft on which the transponder to be
tested is installed, if the transponder was installed by that manufacturer.


At this point I am ready to go back to the EAA group and admit that I was wrong, and present the above data to corroborate the other gentleman's claim, as it appears he is indeed correct that he can legally do the transponder checks (but again, has no interest in doing so and readily admits it is not practical for us to do it).

Unless there is any other data that proves otherwise?

Thanks,

-Dj
 
I know if you asked the guys at my FSDO they would say no you can't, the definition of a manufacturer is pretty clear which you do not meet as a experimental aircraft "builder". One of the key missing ingredients is a manufacturer has FAA oversight with approved methods, processes, QA, etc., you do not.

Unless there is any other data that proves otherwise?

Thanks,

-Dj

You are the manufacturer for the build but NOT an approved production facility so are NOT the manufacturer when it comes to doing the transponder / pitot-static checks.

As Walt said, check with your local FSDO and see what they have to say.
 
You are the manufacturer for the build but NOT an approved production facility so are NOT the manufacturer when it comes to doing the transponder / pitot-static checks.

Hi Gary,
That was my original position as well, but I cannot find any documentation that actually says that you need to be. As far as I can tell, in FAA terms "manufacturer" does not equal "approved production facility" nor does it equal "Production Approval Holder", BUT, and here is the crux of the matter, I cannot find any documentation that says you have to be either of those. All the docs I've found simply say you have to be the "manufacturer", and we have FAA's legal counsel saying that "builder" does equal "manufacturer" in FAA speak.

Can you point me at any actual documentation that states that you need to be an approved production facility or production approval holder to perform the transponder tests?

-Dj
 
Hi Gary,
That was my original position as well, but I cannot find any documentation that actually says that you need to be. As far as I can tell, in FAA terms "manufacturer" does not equal "approved production facility" nor does it equal "Production Approval Holder", BUT, and here is the crux of the matter, I cannot find any documentation that says you have to be either of those. All the docs I've found simply say you have to be the "manufacturer", and we have FAA's legal counsel saying that "builder" does equal "manufacturer" in FAA speak.

Can you point me at any actual documentation that states that you need to be an approved production facility or production approval holder to perform the transponder tests?

-Dj

I would kindly encourage you to give up on this wild goose chase while you are ahead (and still sane). The docs you are requesting do exist (and are quite lengthy I might add), but it's buried in myriads of other CFR's, and you'd need to familiarize yourself with actual manufacturers, those specs, PMA's, etc.. There is SO MUCH more to this than simply what you can find doing google searches on the interwebs. To be my usual blunt self, the entire discussion is completely moot - whether at an EAA meeting or an online web forum....

Part of the problem is you are using some terms (that while the same gramatically) in varying contexts mean entirely different things both legally and functionally. The exclusatory nature of the FAR's make it difficult to easily understand some of them, especially when they can end up almost circular in nature, AND they often times point to other documents that are not FAR's (but those documents become relevant when referred to in the FAR)...some of which are hard to even find online.

Sometimes there are just things in life where you have to trust those who already know...I hear the ocean is deep, but I'll never see the bottom so I trust those who do know. I know the top of Everest is high, but I'll never climb it to verify it myself...so on and so forth....then again who knows if we ever actually walked on the moon, right!?!? :)

I know you're searching for an easy answer in one simple sentence. The fact is that answer doesn't exist that simply, but does exist in reality in a much more complicated way. A whole slew of folks here which are fairly knowledgeable have told you this repeatedly....so you just need to trust that they are correct here (and they are). Lastly, this is one of those areas that could likely have different answers depending on different things (as previously discussed). There is reality vs. theory at play here too...

Just my 2 cents as usual!

Cheers,
Stein
 
You've heard from Stein, Walt, and myself. We have all talked and interfaced with the FAA people who interpret the rules. The people who write the rules get to interpret them.

If you still wish to push the situation, go right ahead.
Let us know how you come out.

Good Luck,
 
If you still wish to push the situation, go right ahead.

Gentlemen, I am not "pushing" anything. I have said multiple times now that no one here (at my location) is attempting to test their own transponder. This whole discussion is merely an academic exercise based on "hangar talk" that happened between a few guys talking at an EAA meeting.

I hear what you are saying, and as I've said, my own interpretation of the rules matched yours, right up until I actually started trying to find said rules.

I suspect Walt hit upon the situation when he said that his definition of "manufacturer" may have come from a previous version of Order 8130.2G. Somewhere along the way it may have been changed, with perhaps unintended consequences.

Remember, this is the gov't we are taking about. If it doesn't have reams of paper backing it up, in triplicate, then it doesn't exist. So far, we've heard opinions from multiple people (Walt, Mel, and Stein), and I mean absolutely no offense by this, but they are merely opinions unless backed up by actual data from FAA documentation.

Bottom line is that today, you may very well be able to legally do the tests, but everyone is so ingrained to think that they can't they they haven't gone back to the documentation to see if that might have changed, or, it is so buried as Stein suggested that it is impossible for us mere mortals to find.

I may throw this by the local FSDO just to see what they say, but again, I stress that this is merely curiousity on my part.

I thank all of you for your feedback. If I do bother to send this off and hear something from the FSDO I will report back to the group.

-Dj
 
I may throw this by the local FSDO just to see what they say, but again, I stress that this is merely curiousity on my part.
-Dj

I'll post one more time and then let it go. We have had FAA's interpretation.

I will also add one thing that I have posted many times before. Just because you may get the answer you want from a FSDO or MIDO guy, that doesn't make it so.

An FAA ASI does NOT have the authority to override the regs. The final decision comes from the FAA in Washington, and they have spoken.
 
An FAA ASI does NOT have the authority to override the regs. The final decision comes from the FAA in Washington, and they have spoken.

Mel, this is exactly correct. The way that the FAA in Washington speaks is through written documentation, as in the FARs, Order 8130.2G, Legal Counsel interpretations, etc. That is PRECISELY my point. Not a one of us has produced anything referencing FAA documentation that would indicate that a builder cannot legally do the tests, and what little we have found shows that it may indeed be legal according to the regs as they are today.

That is exactly why I have repeatedly asked for any actual FAA reference, anything at all, that would show otherwise. It doesn't matter what someone says at an EAA meeting, a safety seminar, a DAR meeting, an FAA rep at Oshkosh, or as you indicate even at the local FSDO. The ONLY thing that matters is the written regulations from the FAA.

-Dj
 
Don't poke the bear!

I work for the government and I know how "we" work. Although I dont work for the FAA, I do know how the wheels of bureaucracy roll. Be careful what you ask for, because the answer you get may be more burdensome than what you/we already have.

AND...it may have adverse consequences on ALL of us. :eek:
 
Back
Top