non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?

Hmmm...

I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?

Jim

On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote:

Hmmm...

I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?

Jim




I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
(non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?

z

"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote:

Hmmm...

I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?

Jim




I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
(non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?

z

You want someone to prove a negative. Better approach is to find where it
is required. If you can't find it you are home free.

On 07/19/06 20:51, Dave Stadt wrote:
"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote:

Hmmm...

I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?

Jim




I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
(non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?

z

You want someone to prove a negative. Better approach is to find where it
is required. If you can't find it you are home free.



Well ... I looked all through the magazines I have in the bathroom and
found nothing ;-)


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...
On 07/19/06 20:51, Dave Stadt wrote:
"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote:

Hmmm...

I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?

Jim




I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
(non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?

z

You want someone to prove a negative. Better approach is to find where
it is required. If you can't find it you are home free.

Well ... I looked all through the magazines I have in the bathroom and
found nothing ;-)

That's about the same thing you will find in the FARs excluding a very few
items.


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

Precisely my point. You can find TSO requirements for ELTs, altitude
encoders, and transponders in the regs. They are strangely silent for all
else.

Jim




You want someone to prove a negative. Better approach is to find where it
is required. If you can't find it you are home free.

"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote:

Hmmm...

I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?

Jim

I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
(non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?

z

The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 07/20/06 15:22, Juan Jimenez wrote:
"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 11:53:03 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote:

Hmmm...

I find references to Parts and Sections, but nothing for verse.....

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...

Cite to chapter and verse of the FAR, please?

Jim

I'd like to learn if I am incorrect. Can you show me where it says it
is acceptable to use a non-TSO'd part in a certified
(non-experimental) aircraft without changing its classification?

z

The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.

Are you saying that the insurance company is going to make up their
own rules for determining whether or not an aircraft is airworthy?

--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a claim.

Are you saying that the insurance company is going to make up their
own rules for determining whether or not an aircraft is airworthy?

Maybe not, but a jury might, if the TSO'd AI hacks up a hairball and even
with the backup there's an accident. Remember the Carnahan crash?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

The Carnahan crash was caused by the pilot's inability to manage
multiple failures if I remember correctly. Both vacuum pumps failed (one
was known before takeoff wasn't it?) and the pilot failed to recognize
that the vacuum gyros were bogus. Sure the jury found for the plaintiff,
but there was a lot of public emotion in that case and damn few facts.
If it had been a 135 ride it probably wouldn't have left the ground, but
since Carnahan's kid was flying it part 91 he was allowed to make stupid
decisions.

I'd be hesitant to cite the Carnahan case as anything except an example
of a runaway jury.


-----Original Message-----
From: Juan Jimenez ]
Posted At: Friday, July 21, 2006 17:41
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
Subject: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?


"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a
claim.

Are you saying that the insurance company is going to make up their
own rules for determining whether or not an aircraft is airworthy?

Maybe not, but a jury might, if the TSO'd AI hacks up a hairball and
even
with the backup there's an accident. Remember the Carnahan crash?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com