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 » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Glide computer in certified glider



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 10th 18, 02:19 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default Glide computer in certified glider

"A savvy A&P with a pen."

Probably the best advice here. Even under Transport Canada's somewhat pickier reign all I've ever needed with this sort of installation is the sign off in the log book of an AME.
Ads
  #12  
Old May 10th 18, 02:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default Glide computer in certified glider

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 2:05:51 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 12:30:07 PM UTC-7, Peter Thomas wrote:
At 07:23 09 May 2018, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Tuesday, May 8, 2018 at 10:06:56 PM UTC-7, Wade G wrote:
In short,
What is required to install a non-TSO=E2=80=99d moving map

flight
compute=
r IN the panel of my certified glider?
A 337 mess?
=20
WG

Where is your glider A&P?=20

In short, it depends. But is usually only an A&P entry for a minor

change
i=
n the maintenance log book. A 337 is required for major changes,

and it is
=
extremely difficult to image an flight computer install that is by

itself
g=
oing to qualify as a major change in a glider. There are lots of
discussion=
s online from EAA and AOPA about what constitutes minor and

major changes,
=
start there if you want to read up on this.

If you have to ask these questions you probably should not be

contacting a
=
FSDO. Asking questions there can possibly end you up in a world

of hurt
and=
confusion. Its best to leave any questions like that up to the A&P

you
are=
working with. Find an A&P who is experienced working on gliders,

you want
=
that glider specific knowledge anyhow, and this question will likely

be
eas=
y for them to discuss with you and answer once they know the

specific work
=
involved. And if its for some reason a very unusual install that

needs a
FS=
DO discussion or possible 337 filed, let them have that discussion.


The major European manufacturers have general ADs covering
instrument panel and cockpit equipment changes which identify
things you need to check about the item to install (like security,
power consumption etc) This constitutes blanket approval for the
changes, you just quote the AD in the paperwork.(CS-STAN)
I know of Sclhicher, Schempp and DG/LS, there may be others.

Dont know if you can do this in the US

There is an equivalent system under EASA where MFR ADs are not
available (surprisingly helpful) although i doubt many people applied
for an EASA minor mod to change their electric vario. However i
doubt this process would carry to the US.


This is going down the entirely wrong rat hole. These are usually (FAA's regulatory definition of) minor changes (not related necessarily to anything called the same in Europe) that require no interaction with the FAA and no specific paperwork to approve the change. A maintenance log book entry from an A&P is all that is normally required for this in a type certificated glider. The A&P will choose what instructions they follow, and might well follow EASA minor change instructions. I suspect the thing to be most careful of is not replacing any of the flight instruments required in the type certificate with random flight computer capabilities.

This really should be a brief discussion with a glider A&P... its up to them to work on this and advise owners of what is needed. If stuff is not clear then ask your A&P to explain it to you (there may be reasons) or if they can't do so to your satisfaction then call another glider repair shop.

I recently got roped into advising on a few ADS-B Out/avionics installs in powered aircraft and that reminded me of how much confusion there on ADS-B in GA and on the major vs. minor change stuff and how many assumptions owners can make before talking to a knowledgeable A&P. (Hey Bob, I'd love a ride in that T6 with or without ADS-B Out :-)).


I didn't know that you were an A&P.

Tom
  #13  
Old May 10th 18, 02:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,158
Default Glide computer in certified glider

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 6:24:07 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

I didn't know that you were an A&P.

Tom


I'm not, and I think you know that. But I do know enough about ADS-B Out to have an intelligent conversation with owners and A&Ps. I've worked with vendors, resellers, STC holders and A&Ps on ADS-B Out install related issues in gliders. And my point there is for type certified gliders work though an A&P otherwise its academic what anybody (including me) thinks,... you need the person who is actually going to do the work/sign the log book to be involved. Which goes back to the point Bob was making by quoting that great AOPA article. I can help with some technical ADS-B questions or provide better contacts to folks, but an A&P really needs to be involved from early on.
  #14  
Old May 10th 18, 02:58 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 266
Default Glide computer in certified glider

If the glider was built in Germany there's probably also a TN from the manufacturer giving guidance on installing equipment. Linked as an example is the one Schleicher provides. This sort of thing could be useful if your A&P wants more than the (often very terse) glider manual and the AC 43.13 to go by.

https://www.alexander-schleicher.de/...02_E-II_HB.pdf

  #15  
Old May 10th 18, 04:03 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Wade G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Glide computer in certified glider

Perfect! The Schleicher note is exactly what I was looking for.
Thanks!
  #16  
Old May 10th 18, 06:16 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 484
Default Glide computer in certified glider

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 6:39:26 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 6:24:07 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

I didn't know that you were an A&P.

Tom


I'm not, and I think you know that. But I do know enough about ADS-B Out to have an intelligent conversation with owners and A&Ps. I've worked with vendors, resellers, STC holders and A&Ps on ADS-B Out install related issues in gliders. And my point there is for type certified gliders work though an A&P otherwise its academic what anybody (including me) thinks,... you need the person who is actually going to do the work/sign the log book to be involved. Which goes back to the point Bob was making by quoting that great AOPA article. I can help with some technical ADS-B questions or provide better contacts to folks, but an A&P really needs to be involved from early on.


I suspected it, but wanted to be sure. In that case, you are not an authoritative source on the subject. Yet, you tell others NOT to go to an authoritative source, the FAA - unbelievable! At the end of the day, we all HAVE to answer to the FAA - that is just the way it is, so get used to it.

Tom
  #17  
Old May 10th 18, 07:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Darryl Ramm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,158
Default Glide computer in certified glider

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:17:00 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 6:39:26 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 6:24:07 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:

I didn't know that you were an A&P.

Tom


I'm not, and I think you know that. But I do know enough about ADS-B Out to have an intelligent conversation with owners and A&Ps. I've worked with vendors, resellers, STC holders and A&Ps on ADS-B Out install related issues in gliders. And my point there is for type certified gliders work though an A&P otherwise its academic what anybody (including me) thinks,... you need the person who is actually going to do the work/sign the log book to be involved. Which goes back to the point Bob was making by quoting that great AOPA article. I can help with some technical ADS-B questions or provide better contacts to folks, but an A&P really needs to be involved from early on.


I suspected it, but wanted to be sure. In that case, you are not an authoritative source on the subject. Yet, you tell others NOT to go to an authoritative source, the FAA - unbelievable! At the end of the day, we all HAVE to answer to the FAA - that is just the way it is, so get used to it.

Tom


Tom you need to stop misrepresenting what I'm saying. I don't know how to make it simpler for you. I am not saying don't ask the FSDO, I am suggesting doing so *if needed* by going through the A&P doing the work, and be aware of some potential issues before doing that. And in the case of ADS-B Out I've tried to help people by pointing to the main FAA policy document to read. That is the document the FSDO staff are following and will quote when you ask them questions. That may well answer any questions by itself. Have you even read it?

Most A&Ps understand what they are doing, they likely don't need to contact the FSDO or if they do they know exactly who to go to and how to ask questions. They may not appreciate owners contacting a FSDO and creating unneeded confusion or work. It could be a unfortunate way for an owner to ruin a working relationship with their A&P.

I've seen people have issues with ADS-B Out and TABS misunderstandings with their FSDO and I'm trying to help other people avoid similar problems. Are you actually involved in any ADS-B Out or TABS installs? Have you every installed/configured an ADS-B Out system? Dealt with any of FSDO issues related to ADS-B Out installs? Have you helped work with vendors and STC owners to get those STCs available for gliders? Do A&Ps contact you for help doing installs or paperwork or for help when they talk to their FSDO staff? I suspect that's no in all regards for you. Yes for me. But don't let not actually having done anything stop you having lots of opinion here.

Do you even care that your simplistic "contact the FSDO" advice to owners without any caution or extra info might cause people problems? Ah **** it, what the hell, it won't be your problem...



  #18  
Old May 10th 18, 02:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tom (TK)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default Glide computer in certified glider

From another conversation on the same topic...

CFRs.
14 CFR 91 Subpart C— Equipment, Instrument, and Certificate Requirements.
Section 91.205 —Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and equipment are required:
(2) Two-way radio communication and navigation equipment suitable for the route to be flown.

There are also some general references as to the performance requirements of installed equipment. Please refer to 14 CFR 23 Subpart F Section 23.1301, 23.1309, 23.14 31
At this point it would be the responsibility of the installer to verify that the installed equipment meets the requirements of the above part 23 sections. One means to insure this would be to only install TSO’d equipment. TSO’d equipment is equipment that the FAA has examined and determined that it meets the requirements of Part 23. Another way would be to review the requirements set forth for a particular type of equipment (i.e.
communication or navigation radio) by referring to a particular TSO document. The TSO document will spell out the minimum performance standard for a type of equipment, usually by referencing an industry-standard organization’s documentation such as that of RTCA Inc. (Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics). At this point in our discussion one might be overwhelmed by the process and choose the path of least resistance and go
with the TSO’d equipment. Or one could look to the manufacturer of the equipment for information as to what standard the equipment was manufactured to. This information is typically found in the specifications section of the equipment’s installation manual. The idea that a piece of equipment meets the requirements of a recognized standard such as a TSO but not have the TSO authorization is backed up in FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 4 chapter 9 Section 2 paragraph 4-1178 General (C) Definitions (10) Meet Minimum
TSO-Established Standards: Means that the equipment need not have TSO approval, but only meet requirements set by the TSO.

The next topic that comes up in the discussion is whether or not the installation is required to be recorded on FAA Form 337 and whether it will require a field approval. These questions are answered by examining the requirements for the use of Form 337 and for field approvals. 14 CFR Part 1 Section 1.1 defines a minor alteration as an alteration that is not a major alteration. Some examples of major alteration are defined in Appendix
A of Part 43. Unfortunately the installation of radio equipment is not appropriately covered in the appendix.

FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 4 Chapter 9 provides guidance as to determining if an alteration is major or minor. It can be broken down into a series of
questions the installer might answer to arrive at a designation of the alteration as major or minor.
General alterations:
• Does the proposed alteration have an appreciable effect on the certificated weight? (i.e. A change in the maximum
takeoff weight limitations, minimum landing weight limitations, etc.)
• Does the proposed alteration have an appreciable effect on the certificated balance? (i.e. A change in the forward or
aft center of gravity limits, etc.)
• Does the proposed alteration have an appreciable effect on the structural strength?
• Does the proposed alteration have an appreciable effect on the performance?
• Does the proposed alteration have an appreciable effect on the powerplant operation?
• Does the proposed alteration have an appreciable effect on the flight characteristics?
• Does the proposed alteration have an appreciable effect on other characteristics affecting the airworthiness?

Yes to any of the above questions: The proposed change is a major change in type design requiring the application for a Supplemental Type Certificate (STC).
• Is it possible that the proposed alteration might have an appreciable effect on the certificated weight? (i.e. A change in the maximum takeoff weight limitations, minimum landing weight limitations, etc.)
• Is it possible that the proposed alteration might have an appreciable effect on the certificated balance? (i.e. A change in the forward or aft center of gravity limits, etc.)
• Is it possible that the proposed alteration might have an appreciable effect on the structural strength?
• Is it possible that the proposed alteration might have an appreciable effect on the performance?
• Is it possible that the proposed alteration might have an appreciable effect on the powerplant operation?
• Is it possible that the proposed alteration might have an appreciable effect on the flight characteristics?
• Is it possible that the proposed alteration might have an appreciable effect on other characteristics affecting the airworthiness?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the wings?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the tail surfaces?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the fuselage?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the engine mounts?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the control system?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the landing gear?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the hull or floats?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the elements of an airframe including spars, ribs, fittings, shock absorbers, bracing, cowling, fairings, and balance weights?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the hydraulic and electrical actuating system of components?
• Does the proposed alteration alter the rotor blades?
• Does the proposed alteration change the empty weight or empty balance which results in an increase in the maximum certificated weight or center of gravity limits of the aircraft?
• Does the proposed alteration change the basic design of the fuel, oil, cooling, heating, cabin pressurization, electrical, hydraulic, deicing, or exhaust systems.
• Does the proposed alteration change the wing or any fixed or movable control surfaces which affect flutter and vibration characteristics?
• Does the proposed alteration convert an aircraft engine from one approved model to another, involving any changes in compression ratio, propeller reduction gear, impeller gear ratios or the substitution of major engine parts which requires extensive rework and testing of the engine?
• Does the proposed alteration change the engine by replacing aircraft engine structural parts with parts not supplied by the original manufacturer or parts not specifically approved by the Administrator?
• Does the proposed alteration include the installation of an accessory which is not approved for the engine?
• Does the proposed alteration include the removal of accessories that are listed as required equipment on the aircraft or engine specification?
• Does the proposed alteration include the installation of structural parts other than the type of parts approved for the installation?
• Does the proposed alteration make any conversions of any sort for the purpose of using fuel of a rating or grade other than that listed in the engine specifications?

Yes or maybe to any of the above questions: The proposed change is a major alteration requiring approved data, recording of FAA Form 337 and a log book entry.

Confirmed no to all: Continue.
• Has the Administrator issued an Advisory Circular that requires the use of approved data for this installation/ alteration?
Yes. Follow the guidance contained in the Advisory Circular.
No. Continue.
• Has the Administrator issued policy (HBAW, FSAW, etc.) that requires the use of approved data for this installation/alteration?
Yes. Follow the published policy.
No. The alteration is a minor alteration with no additional published guidance therefore the use of acceptable data is authorized and the alteration/installation must be recorded in the appropriate maintenance record. Follow the provisions of Part 43, 65 and/or 145 as appropriate.

Appliance alterations:
• Does the alteration affect the basic design of the appliance?
Yes. Continue.
No. The alteration is considered an appliance minor alteration.
• Is the alteration of the basic design of the appliance made in accordance with recommendations of the appliance manufacturer or in accordance with an FAA Airworthiness Directive?
Yes. Continue.
No. The alteration is considered a major appliance alteration.
• Does the change in the basic design of radio communication and navigation equipment approved under type certification or a Technical Standard Order have an effect on frequency stability, noise level, sensitivity, selectivity, distortion, spurious radiation, AVC characteristics or ability to meet environmental test conditions and other changes that have an effect on the performance of the equipment?
Yes. The alteration is considered a major appliance alteration.
No. The alteration is considered a minor appliance alteration.
  #19  
Old May 10th 18, 02:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default Glide computer in certified glider

"Yet, you tell others NOT to go to an authoritative source, the FAA - unbelievable!"

The FAA is not necessarily an "authoritative" source. They DO HAVE authority, but they are often sadly ignorant of their own policies, "guidance" and regulations. A couple of glaring examples:

1) Someone inquired about the meaning of the wording in the Centrair Pegase 101A Maintenance Manual that referred to a 3000 hour Structural Life Limit, but also referred to a 3000 hour inspection. The misguided ASE immediately issued an Airworthiness Directive, cramming it through the system in only 88 days, including a 32 day comment period (instead of the minimum 60 days), that ordered owners to cross out all reference to the inspection and throw the glider away at 3000 hours. This in spite of the fact that the glider is certified in Europe with NO LIFE LIMIT as long as it continues to pass the 3000 hour inspection at the appropriate intervals. According to the Bilateral Aviation Safety Agreement (BASA) between FAA and EASA, the European standard should apply. The author of the AD, Greg Davison, when queried about this, replied directly, "We don't pay much attention to that." Once Bob Carlton and I started fighting back on the issue, Mr. Davison's managers circled the wagons and backed him up. It took nine years, support from our Congressmen, Senators and their staff and the likelihood of an actual Congressional Hearing to get the FAA to agree to a Global Alternate Means Of Compliance (AMOC) that extended the Pegase life to 4,500 hours.

2) The same Greg Davison issued a memo concerning the perceived 35 year life limit on the IAR Brasov Twin Lark, implying it was to be removed from service upon reaching the limit. However, this was also wrong. The FAA issued a "clarification" in October 2017 stating that the aircraft can continue in service provided it remains in airworthy condition. (http://www.ssa.org/files/member/FAA%...7%20-%20Signed[2543].pdf)

Mr. Davison is no longer in a position to affect certification or issue Airworthiness Directives.

These are just two examples of erroneous decisions from the FAA resulting from misinterpretations. And I can cite a lot more.

  #20  
Old May 10th 18, 04:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
K m
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 65
Default Glide computer in certified glider

On Wednesday, May 9, 2018 at 10:17:00 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
Yet, you tell others NOT to go to an authoritative source, the FAA - unbelievable! At the end of the day, we all HAVE to answer to the FAA -

2G, Go to FAA.GOV, Then to the TDC for your glider. Then to the supporting documents outlined therein and any supporting SBs, TNs, and SLs. The FAA is fine with this, why aren't you (Or are you going out of your way to miss the point)?
 




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
Glide computer review Itsaplane[_2_] Soaring 24 December 11th 09 05:43 PM
Cheap Glide Computer Uncle Fuzzy Soaring 18 November 9th 09 09:24 PM
iPhone Glide Computer Kloudy via AviationKB.com Soaring 13 September 13th 07 03:41 AM
Glide computer Mark Siegelberg Soaring 1 January 13th 07 01:08 PM
Best Glide computer and why Roger Soaring 10 October 24th 06 08:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.