A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Lightspeed Battery Box Warning



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old July 9th 03, 12:16 AM
Jim Weir
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Steve House"
shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

Now I will be the first to admit I'm a newby so I my impressions may
-be in error and as such take anything I say with a grain of salt

OK, that's a good start.


but my
-understanding of what TSO means is that 1: the product was type accepted,

Nope. It means the manufacturer tested the unit in accordance with the
Technical Service Order and it met some arbitrary specification. Look up the
TSO for audio panels some day. There are still vestiges of vacuum tube
terminology.

-passed testing to insure that it did what it was supposed to and was
-compatible with and did not interact negatively with the other aircraft
-systems,

Nope. That's the installer/approver's job.


and 2: that the manufacturer has quality assurance programs in
-effect that would insure all products coming off the line met the same
-performance standards as the samples submitted for approval.

Nope. That's PMA.

I may be
-wrong, but it seems to me to be foolish to buy non-TSO'ed equipment for
-permanent aircraft installation or for use by the PIC or FO if there is one.

And how many airplanes did you say you have owned or paid the maintenance bill
on?


-If my understanding of the QA issues regarding TSO is correct, this would
-certainly increase the price of the product because testing of each and
-every unit coming off the line is certainly going to be more expensive than
-testing randomly selected samples.

Even if the FAA approved testing procedure calls for random sampling? Not
hardly.


Because of the unforgiving nature of
-aviation, uncertainty of product quality where safety of flight is concerned
-is something I personally can't afford at any price and battery packs that
-spontaneously burst into flame certainly seem to me to be a safety issue,
-even if they're carried enclosed in fire resistant pouches.

Did anybody say anything about bursting into flame? Sydney said the damn thing
got hot to the point of softening the plastic case. Don't build hysteria with
wild-ass projections.

And, if you are so worried about product quality, then build 'em yourself. That
way you have 100% control over the product and performance.

www.rstengineering.com {;-)


Jim



Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com
 




Thread Tools
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RG Battery Charger by Jim Weir in Kitplanes Kevin O'Brien Home Built 4 January 6th 05 01:19 AM
Handheld battery question RobsSanta General Aviation 8 September 19th 04 03:07 PM
For Keith Willshaw... robert arndt Military Aviation 253 July 6th 04 05:18 AM
Plane with no stall warning device? Roy Smith General Aviation 23 February 17th 04 03:23 AM
Lightspeed -- Was:Oshkosh 2003 Redux Jack McAdams Home Built 8 August 14th 03 03:19 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.