X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 11:32:03 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from smtpauth01.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.61] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0.2) with ESMTP id 847725 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 11:03:56 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.61; envelope-from=hwasti@starband.net Received: from [148.64.23.255] (helo=starband.net) by smtpauth01.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EgOzc-0003PJ-VS for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 27 Nov 2005 11:03:12 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <4389D8AD.1020608@starband.net> X-Original-Date: Sun, 27 Nov 2005 08:02:53 -0800 From: "Hamid A. Wasti" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-To: Lancair Mailing List Subject: To TSO or not to TSO, that is the question. References: Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ab8bf21e37edb06c1aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec7962efc9848fa3862d0bbc0239aca27730350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-Originating-IP: 148.64.23.255 Micah Froese wrote:

Does this mean I should stop looking at Trutrak for my autopilot?

Sorry, this one paragraph answer grew a huge preamble. If you want just the answer to your question, it is in the last paragraph.

A TSO means that a product has demonstrated to an independent and qualified 3rd party that it meets certain specifications as prescribed by the FAA. Not having a TSO does not necessarily mean that that product does not meet those specifications. Many non-TSO'd products may indeed meet many, or even most of the requirements of the applicable TSO, but since they have not been tested by an independent and qualified 3rd party, I believe those claims are just those -- claims that need to be taken with a whole sack of salt, not just a grain or two.

Even the Collins and Honeywells of the world, who have done this for decades and have in-house experts that have more knowledge and experience than the entire experimental community combined, do not always get it right the first time. Even for them, pre-certification testing is not a rubber stamp process but an iterative step in the design of the product. Knowing that, when you hear someone say that "we are so confident that it will pass all the TSO tests that we do not need to have it tested by someone who is qualified to do the tests" they are speaking either from ignorance or malice and I want no part of either.

Flying an experimental airplane means that you get to decide what quality stuff you want in your airplane and what tests you are going to accept as proof of that quality; a TSO, a recommendation by at least 5 people on the LML, a flashy brochure, a prices of less than $xxx, an oath on the POH of their airplane or some other holy book by the designer, the reputation and track record of the designer, or whatever. That brings me to point of my original post and the response to the question: There are companies that let their products sink or swim based on the quality of their product. Then there are companies that feel that their products need to be bolstered by what I consider to be meaningless and red-flag claims like "it is TSO-able" or "it is certifiable." I have never heard Trutrak make any such claims.

That said, there are many people in this industry whose track record speaks louder than any marketing brochure. Jim Younkin of Trutrak is one of the few individuals whose decades long track record says that he knows what he is doing. If that, and the fact that a lot of people on the LML are using it and are happy with it, is good enough for you, then by all means go for Trutrak. If you feel better with a TSO, the go with one of his previous designs from Century.

Regards,

Hamid