X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 07:41:20 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail-iy0-f176.google.com ([209.85.210.176] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4.1) with ESMTPS id 5095410 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:04:17 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.210.176; envelope-from=mwsletten@gmail.com Received: by iyn35 with SMTP id 35so2493066iyn.7 for ; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:03:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.68.205 with SMTP id w13mr2986387ibi.46.1313611421226; Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:03:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from MarkDesktop ([204.13.115.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g21sm587079ibl.7.2011.08.17.13.03.39 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 17 Aug 2011 13:03:40 -0700 (PDT) From: "Mark Sletten" X-Original-To: References: In-Reply-To: Subject: RE: Re-doing my panel - carefully thinking through failures X-Original-Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 15:04:07 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: <007001cc5d18$d33eac80$79bc0580$@com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0071_01CC5CEE.EA68A480" X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Thread-Index: AcxcJUBYbOTv2lWAQgCxPl8it6zNBgA8vM2A Content-Language: en-us This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0071_01CC5CEE.EA68A480 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Given the level of confusion often exhibited by FAA bureaucrats regarding airworthiness as defined by the FARs, is anyone really surprised there might be disagreement out here among us unenlightened (albeit really well-informed unenlightened) about the subject? -- Mark From: GT Phantom [mailto:gt_phantom@hotmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:01 AM To: lml@lancaironline.net Subject: Re: Re-doing my panel - carefully thinking through failures Brent, I'm sorry it pains you so to consider you may be misinformed that you resort to insulting language, but the facts are the facts. Only the Altimeter installed must meet TSO according to the regulations. Other instruments installed in an Experimental aircraft are not subject to that rule, and no other rule requires it. By installing a non-TSO instrument in the aircraft the builder is "personally certifying" that the instrument is suitable to flight for the regimes of flight for which it will be used. Casting insults does not change the regs; it only highlights that some people unfortunately react immaturely when faced with the possibility that what they think they know is incorrect. Fly Safe! Bill On 01/-10/-28163 02:59 PM, Brent Regan wrote: A TSO is a TSO is a TSO. Bill writes: <<< It is not true that every other piece of equipment in an experimental aircraft must meet TSO.>>> What I wrote was " You MUST have at least one of each of the required instruments and they MUST meet the TSO, regardless of whether the manufacturer has TSO Authorization or the altimeter has TSO Design Approval." Bills confusion is not uncommon. ------=_NextPart_000_0071_01CC5CEE.EA68A480 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Given the level of confusion often exhibited by FAA bureaucrats = regarding airworthiness as defined by the FARs, is anyone really = surprised there might be disagreement out here among us unenlightened = (albeit really well-informed unenlightened) about the subject? =

 

-- Mark

 

From: GT Phantom [mailto:gt_phantom@hotmail.com]
Sent: = Tuesday, August 16, 2011 10:01 AM
To: = lml@lancaironline.net
Subject: Re: Re-doing my panel - = carefully thinking through failures

 

Brent,

I'm sorry it pains you so to consider = you may be misinformed that you resort to insulting language, but the = facts are the facts.  Only the Altimeter installed must meet = TSO according to the regulations.  Other instruments installed in = an Experimental aircraft are not subject to that rule, and no other rule = requires it.  By installing a non-TSO instrument in the aircraft = the builder is "personally certifying" that the instrument is = suitable to flight for the regimes of flight for which it will be = used.

Casting insults does not change the regs; it only = highlights that some people unfortunately react immaturely when faced = with the possibility that what they think they know is = incorrect.

Fly Safe!

Bill



On 01/-10/-28163 = 02:59 PM, Brent Regan wrote:

A TSO = is a TSO is a TSO.

Bill writes:

<<< It is = not true that every other piece of equipment in an experimental = aircraft must meet TSO.>>>

What I  wrote was " = You MUST have at least one of each of the required instruments and they = MUST meet the TSO, regardless of whether the manufacturer has TSO = Authorization or the altimeter has TSO Design = Approval."

Bills confusion is not uncommon. =

 

------=_NextPart_000_0071_01CC5CEE.EA68A480--