From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: electric attitude indicators
To: lml
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:47:54 -0500
Message-ID: <web-1687849@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <LLEIKPKCIOPOGHLPJIFPKEIGCDAA.jn@elp.rr.com>
References: <LLEIKPKCIOPOGHLPJIFPKEIGCDAA.jn@elp.rr.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="iso-8859-1";format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Joseph Neustein,MD" <jn@elp.rr.com>:

  Colyn:
  
  I agree 100% with your assessment except I do not see how an instrument
  being TSOed helps. As you noted there are TSOed instruments you would not
  want to use.   AHRS may be an issue regardless of wheter or not is TSOed and
  used in Certified aircraft. I concur that the vagaries of our unique
  homebuilts may introduce variables that will make an instrument that works
  just fine  as TSOed and approved for installation in a certified Cessna 182,
  not function in a Lancair. Accordingly the TSO designation that a component
  was manufactured to certain standards should not have any legal or
  prognostic standing in a homebuilt as there is no approval process I know of
  for the installation of a TSOed instrument in a  homebuilt since they are
  obviously by nature all a bit different. So we are all left to "experiment"
  with what we believe are the best solutions using reliable companies, tested
  technology ( means different things to different people), and redundancy and
  not rely on a TSO designation as a cart blanc to install in an experimental.
  
  Thank you for your input and hope these discussions help all us make safe
  and intelligent decisions.
  
  Joe
  

"""
   Joe,
       I think the issue is that there is a statistical interaction
   among a number of variables totally out of your control.
   Testing tries to capture a larger portion of the statistical
   population so that you aren't dead because a few of
   those independent variables aligned one day in a way
   that will result in malfunction.
"""