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

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

"Jim Carter" wrote in message .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.
:
:

The vacuum pumps did not fail, just the AI...

Didn't the vacuum source fail which caused the AI to fail? I thought the
jury decision was based on there being no vacuum failure annunciator,
but I could be wrong.


-----Original Message-----
From: .Blueskies. ]
Posted At: Saturday, July 22, 2006 06:33
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
Subject: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?


"Jim Carter" wrote in message
.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.
:
:

The vacuum pumps did not fail, just the AI...

"Jim Carter" wrote in message .com...
: Didn't the vacuum source fail which caused the AI to fail? I thought the
: jury decision was based on there being no vacuum failure annunciator,
: but I could be wrong.
:
:

My understanding is the primary AI rolled over on its back and the pilot was not proficient enough to fight the
disorientation. I do know the vacuum pumps were OK even though Parker had to pay...The jury got it wrong...

Here is the nitty gritty:
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAB0202.htm
Probable Cause
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the pilot's failure to
control the airplane while maneuvering because of spatial disorientation. Contributing to the accident were the failure
of the airplane's primary attitude indicator and the adverse weather conditions, including turbulence.