VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > Avionics / Interiors / Fiberglass > Glass Cockpit
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-04-2019, 09:10 PM
echozulu echozulu is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Ocean City, MD
Posts: 82
Default

EAA's position is that the system you install does not necessarily need to be TSO'd, but if it's not, you better be prepared to show the FAA that it meets TSO specs if you wish to use it for IFR ops. And that would be on you, the builder, to provide evidence of testing and analysis that shows this equipment you installed complies with the TSO.
__________________
RV-10 - Empennage 95%
QB Fuse - Working
QB Wings - Delivered
San Diego, CA

www.wheelswelded.com
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-05-2019, 08:38 AM
Brantel's Avatar
Brantel Brantel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Newport, TN
Posts: 7,496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by echozulu View Post
EAA's position is that the system you install does not necessarily need to be TSO'd, but if it's not, you better be prepared to show the FAA that it meets TSO specs if you wish to use it for IFR ops. And that would be on you, the builder, to provide evidence of testing and analysis that shows this equipment you installed complies with the TSO.
Yes and those TSO specs are akin to the US Tax code in their requirements......
__________________
Brantel (Brian Chesteen),
Check out my RV-10 builder's BLOG
RV-10, #41942, N?????, Project Sold
---------------------------------------------------------------------
RV-7/TU, #72823, N159SB
Lyc. O-360 carbed, HARTZELL BA CS Prop, Dual P-MAGs, Dual Garmin G3X Touch
Track N159SB (KK4LIF)
Like EAA Chapter 1494 on Facebook
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-05-2019, 09:31 AM
lr172 lr172 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Schaumburg, IL
Posts: 5,297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brantel View Post
Yes and those TSO specs are akin to the US Tax code in their requirements......
and therefore really requires the manufacturer to state that they meet the performance of the TSO. As soon as GRT makes this statement, they really open themselves up to serious liability if they cannot prove it or otherwise show a meaningful effort in doing so. Otherwise it's negligence and they are wide open. If GRT doesn't make that statement, the FAA would never accept it in my opinion and the builder and/or pilot takes on that liability.

While it's very exciting to potentially see this happen some day, I just can't see GRT exposing themselves to that level of liability. This is not like adsb, where most of the TSO testing is on the GPS antenna and reception circuitry and the manufacturers can rely upon the testing and compliance statements of the few component providers that have actually done this testing and understand the TSO in order to sell components to certified providers.

While speculation, I also believe that the FAA relaxed their standards (in allowing stated conformance instead of compliance testing for TSO) in the ADSb market in order to help get products to market and ensure there was not resistance to adoption and therefore meet their timeline. It's unclear if this was a one time thing or a trend. I certainly hope it's the later. The Navworx distaster showed that they don't simply want a statement; They want some meat behind it and they are watching.

Larry
__________________
N64LR - RV-6A / IO-320, Flying as of 8/2015
N11LR - RV-10, Flying as of 12/2019

Last edited by lr172 : 04-05-2019 at 03:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-05-2019, 12:35 PM
BobTurner BobTurner is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brantel View Post
Yes and those TSO specs are akin to the US Tax code in their requirements......
- A great analogy!
The only hope for small manufacturers is if the FAA allows demonstrated conformance to the Performance specs of the TSO, which is much less work than the full TSO. For example, the full TSO contains requirements on ?parts traceability?. This alone could overwhelm a small company.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-05-2019, 04:45 PM
svyolo svyolo is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: bellingham, wa
Posts: 202
Default

I believe Dynon and Garmin both are going where the meat is in the market. Nothing against them.

I would not guess when the FAA will allow GPS based approaches off an EFIS, but I do think we are headed in that direction. GRT and maybe MGL both are equipping their EFIS's with some built in functionality for this. I thought I was going to buy Dynon/AFS, but I am pretty sure I am going with GRT for this reason. If more customers wanted it, I am sure the other two would follow suit.

Flying a VOR/LOC/NDB by using and EFIS based approach should be totally legal, as I have been trained by 4 airlines to use it, and flew them at 3. I never had to do one in CONUS.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.