• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

I hear rumors of a shop that will not install non-TSO radios

B

bob turner

Registered User
I also heard rumors that AOPA looked in to the issue. Almost all the info I have found says that, at least, a non-TSO comm radio is OK for a VFR Super Cub.

I did a search - best I could come up with is that nobody has found a rule requiring a TSO comm in a VFR part 91 airplane, and that part 91 does require TSO for other things, like transponders and ELTs.

We have installed three GTN-200s so far, and we are blown away with how good they are, and how easy they are to install.

Thoughts or comments?
 
I can't address the legality side of it, but a simple and effective answer to anything is the least likely to pass government scrutiny.
 
What does part 91 have to do with it? Some one needs to show me the paragraph and line on that one.

Only defense I can think of, for the shop, is that they have something written into their repair station ops specs. That alone is reason enough to NOT become a repair station.

Web
 
Google Non-TSO's radio. I know it has been discussed on ShortWingPipers.org and I believe here as well. 170B was never TSO'd.
 
Private shop?

Legal or not, it is their choice on what work they wish to do. Maybe they have had issues in the past with owners coming back complaining that the radio was not TSO.

Allow the owners their freedom to make decisions, if you don't like it go somewhere else.

Easy answer.
 
aktango58 said:
Private shop? Legal or not, it is their choice on what work they wish to do.... if you don't like it go somewhere else...
Click to expand...

I agree. I seem to recall a local-ish avionics guy years ago that didn't like Narco's policies re selling replacement parts to non-Narco-dealer shops, so he refused to install Narco products.
His shop, his decision. But if you just had to have a Narco, you were free to go elsewhere.

Here's my little story: 8 or 9 years ago, I decided to replace the two POS com radios in my C150/150TD with one good one.
I decided on an Icom A200.
I talked to an A&P buddy of mine- I would do the install, he would inspect it and sign it off.
He in turn talked to an IA buddy, who called his PMI:
PMI said a 337 was required no matter what. (that itself has been the basis of many an argument)
PMI also said that the IA could sign off the 337 if the radio was TSO'd,
but a non-TSO'd radio required a field approval. (that was a new one on me)
BTW this was for a VFR-only airplane which didn't even have any gyros.
It turned out Icom mfr'd both a TSO'd and a non-TSO'd version of that radio,
I bought the TSO'd version.
I figured it was worth the extra hundred bucks to avoid the hassle.
I did the install, A&P inspected & filled out the 337, IA signed it off..... and everybody was happy.
 
Last edited:
Yes - the 337 issue is actually a separate issue, and widely misunderstood. I have yet to see where a TSO on a part makes its installation a minor alteration if it would be major without the TSO.

I did see the Short Wing and Ercoupe discussions, and did a search here, to no avail.

As far as I am concerned, this is the most qualified group of opinion-holders in aviation.
 
Jim Weir is one of the most knowledgable guys I know. We used his intercoms in the 1970s. He helped me correct my Decathlon nav antenna Balun. He ran for Governor. Here is his opinion, unsubstantiated:


Short answer is that there is no requirement for TSO or any other FAA approval process for nav or com equipment in part 91 aircraft. FCC approval is required for any transmitter or superheterodyne receiver.

Regards - Bob
 
hotrod180 said:
....He in turn talked to an IA buddy, who called his PMI:
PMI said a 337 was required no matter what. (that itself has been the basis of many an argument)
PMI also said that the IA could sign off the 337 if the radio was TSO'd,
but a non-TSO'd radio required a field approval. (that was a new one on me)
BTW this was for a VFR-only airplane which didn't even have any gyros.
Click to expand...
Years ago I installed a radio in a PA-18, filled out the 337 and handed it to my PMI. He looked at it and handed it back saying "you don't need one of these". So I never filled out another 337 for a radio install. Years later at the annual IA meeting the very same PMI told the room full of IAs that a 337 was required for radio installations. You should have heard the uproar. It seems that a large percentage of IAs have also not been doing 337s for radio installs. I don't recall the final solution.
 
I successfully installed a non-TSO XCom, along with a lot of other stuff, with a 337. The inspector said that the 337 was required not because of the radio, but because any change to the mounting requires it. In his view, unless you need to file a 337 unless you're putting the new radio in exactly the same hole or bracket the old one came out of and the weights don't change much.

Also, according to him, any change in the electrical configuration, such as additional CBs or switches, or significant change in switch locations require a 337, the last part because you're changing the "pilot controls".

Whether or not his views are correct, at least for some inspectors it's not about the radio or its certification status.
 
It seems like asking permission is most of the problem. If the mechanic says its a minor? Its a minor. Install it and get on with life.
 
The pendulum on major/minor for radios keeps swinging, and it depends on what FSDO you are in! Best advice is go to Order 8300.16 figure 3-1 and document your answers. If it comes out Minor, log book entry and go on your merry way. If it comes out Major, then do you have Approved Data? If yes, fill out and file 337 and go on your merry way. If major, and you don't have approved data, then you need to get approved data- field approval, DER approval, DAR Field Approval or STC.

If you use the guidance given, and document the decision process, FAA can't give you a problem (or at least you've set up a good defense if they do).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
skywagon8a said:
Years ago I installed a radio in a PA-18, filled out the 337 and handed it to my PMI. He looked at it and handed it back saying "you don't need one of these"......Years later at the annual IA meeting the very same PMI told the room full of IAs that a 337 was required for radio installations....
Click to expand...

That wasn't a change in policy, that was a "clarification". :roll:
 
Not to divert too much - I consider the 337 issue secondary - but it seems to me that a TSO has nothing to do with approved data for an installation.

That is, if a mechanic decides that an installation needs a 337, just reciting a TSO for the part does not cut it. That mechanic would need an STC or a field approval. It is just like putting a TSO 8:50 tire on a C-180. The TSO is not an approval.

I personally do not consider a comm radio to be major. I have no problem installing the GTR-200 in a Cub or Stearman with a logbook entry, and our local FAA Approved avionics shop had no problem either.
 
I should note - I have no problem asking for, and getting, reasonable field approvals. I got two last year for changing mechanical brakes to hydraulic (a real major alteration) and helped a buddy get one last month. I just don't ask if it does not match the "major" criteria, or if I already have approved data. Again, I do not believe a TSO is approved data for a major alteration.
 
Here is the problem, the PA-18 is a CAR3 airplane. At the time (and continuing to today) an aircraft manufacturer (or STC applicant) has to show compliance to the regulations. Within CAR3 (3.652), there is a requirement that says "Items of equipment for which type certification is required shall have been certificates in accordance with the provisions of Part 15 of this chapter and such other parts as may be applicable" Part 15 is the predecessor of the current TSO system. Back when these aircraft were certified, there was a choice, certify the piece of equipment as a part of the TC, or use an item already certified (TSO). That's why there was a list of eligible equipment in the TCDS. So now if you install a TSO item, you only need the appropriate data for the installation. If you install a non-TSO item, you need appropriate data to not only certify the installation, but to certify the item itself.

The question of Major/Minor is for the installer to determine. Use Part 1 and Appendix A of Part 43 to help make that decision. As I stated above, document it, and press on. If minor, log book entry. If major, 337 citing Approved data and move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
§ 3.652 Functional and installational requirements. Each item of equipment which is essential to the safe operation of the airplane shall be found by the Administrator to perform adequately the functions for which it is to be used, shall function properly when installed, and shall be adequately labeled as to its identification, function, operational limitations, or any combination of these, whichever is applicable. Items of equipment for which type certification is required shall have been certificated in accordance with the provisions of Part 15 of this chapter (or previous regulations) and such other parts as may be applicable.

Two phrases to read: 'Each item of equipment which is essential to the safe operation of the airplane' and 'Items of equipment for which type certification is required'.

Avionics equipment does not fall into either of those descriptions. I.e., a radio is not needed for the safe operation of the aircraft and radios do not require a type certificate nor are required by the type certificate.

Web
 
For those of you who are A&P's or IA's, determining whether your project is a major alteration / repair or not is good advice.
For those of us who are not A&P/IA's, we have to depend on our mechanic's interpretations.
If he says "that needs a 337", or "that needs a TSO",
it's not likely that we are gonna be able to argue them out of that position.
While it might not be right, and might in fact make things like this harder in the future,
it's often easier to just go along to get along-- esp if there isn't all that much money or hassle involved.
As in my story above about installation of a non-TSO'd radio needing a field approval.
Sometimes you just have to pick your fights.
 
wireweinie said:
§ 3.652 Functional and installational requirements. Each item of equipment which is essential to the safe operation of the airplane shall be found by the Administrator to perform adequately the functions for which it is to be used, shall function properly when installed, and shall be adequately labeled as to its identification, function, operational limitations, or any combination of these, whichever is applicable. Items of equipment for which type certification is required shall have been certificated in accordance with the provisions of Part 15 of this chapter (or previous regulations) and such other parts as may be applicable.

Two phrases to read: 'Each item of equipment which is essential to the safe operation of the airplane' and 'Items of equipment for which type certification is required'.

Avionics equipment does not fall into either of those descriptions. I.e., a radio is not needed for the safe operation of the aircraft and radios do not require a type certificate nor are required by the type certificate.

Web
Click to expand...

Web,
To a point I agree with you. For sure a piece of avionics equipment in a VFR airplane is not essential to the safe operation of that airplane. While I know we are talking CAR 3, and CAR 3 doesn't have a direct link to 14CFR23, FAA can jump to Part 23 and require portions of it. When doing any alteration that installs equipment, 23.1309 should be considered. The key here is 23.1309(a)(2) any equipment or system does not adversely affect the safety of the airplane or its occupants, or proper functioning . . . It goes on about lightning strike and hazard classifications and such. The basic idea is it needs to perform the intended function, and not introduce additional hazards.

When installing non-TSO items how do you show that you haven't introduced a new hazard (there could be hazards in the box). This ties right back to the 1.1 definition of major alteration, "that might appreciably affect . . .or other qualities affecting Airworthiness"

When looking at 43 Appendix A, there is nothing there that would point to a Major Alteration. One could try and argue a change to the basic design of the electrical system(that's what FAA hung their hat on for years), but adding a CB is not a change to the basic design in my opinion.

So the only thing that might lead to a decision for Major is the possibility of introducing a hazard. That is the determination for the installer.

Now, consider this, the filing of a 337 for a minor alteration could be considered a violation of 43.9, just as not filing one for a major alteration. Hence my comments earlier, use the FAA guidance, and document your decision logic as you go through the flow chart. If you decide it is a minor, and you make the log book entry, you satisfied the regulatory requirement. On the other hand if you use the guidance and determine it is a major, fill out the 337 citing approved data.

As a DER, I'm faced with the same problem as my guidance says I can't issue an 8110-3 for a minor alteration. If an applicant asks me to approve a project that is a minor, I have to decline the project. A decline from a DER would give credence to a decision for a minor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Edit - re: hotrod's post

That is certainly true, and goes along with Mark's comment: a mechanic or shop has the right to refuse any job, with or without a good reason. I turn down most folks - I am very cautious about what I sign.

We, as a group, are all over the map here. I respect all your opinions - I shall continue to install the GTR -200 with logbook entries.
 
dgapilot said:
While I know we are talking CAR 3, and CAR 3 doesn't have a direct link to 14CFR23, FAA can jump to Part 23 and require portions of it.

I find this an incredibly troubling statement. Not because it's false, but because I know it happens.

One of the first things we learn about the 'admin' side of maintenance is that aircraft are to be maintained in accordance with their certification basis. CAR 3, CAR 4, Part 23. Where is the legal basis for requiring Part 23 criteria for a CAR 3 aircraft? I understand that Part 23 is much more restrictive in certain requirements and, like it or not, is something we work with. It is the rules and they are in writing. Legally speaking, how does this translate to aircraft certified under CAR3 or 4? How can the FAA 'jump to Part 23 and require parts of it'? Which parts and when are they going to jump to them? The short answer is that we don't know and when they do it's NOT in accordance with and rules or regulations. When I've been involved in these cases it's been a matter of the fed personally wanting it that way. There was no regulation backing his decision, therefore it was 'illegal'.

CAR 3 and 4 are actually fairly clear in requirements for parts attached to aircraft. Two examples are props and batteries. For propellers;
§ 3.416 Propellers. (a) Propellers installed in certificated airplanes shall be of a type which has been certificated in accordance with the provisions of Part 14 of this chapter. Pretty clear that props need to be certified.
But for batteries;
§ 3.682 Batteries. When an item of electrical equipment which is essential to the safe operation of the airplane is installed, the battery
required shall have sufficient capacity to supply the electrical power necessary for dependable operation of the connected electrical equipment.
§ 3.683 Protection against acid. If batteries are of such a type that corrosive substance may escape during servicing or flight, means such as a completely enclosed compartment shall be provided to prevent such substances from coming in contact with other parts of the airplane which are essential to safe operation. Batteries shall be accessible for servicing and inspection on the ground.
§ 3.684 Battery vents. The battery container or compartment shall be vented in such manner that gases released by the battery are carried outside the airplane.
Nothing mentioned about any certification requirements at all.

Even if we can't win every fight, we need to push back against excessive requirements. Owners and mechanics can simply ask to 'show me the regs'. If we let ourselves be forced to maintain non part 23 aircraft in accordance with Part 23, we are causing ourselves more paperwork headaches and higher bills for our customers.

Web
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
21.101, the changed product rule is the basis for jumping to 23. Fortunately 21.101 exempts us from most of 23 and allows the original cert basis, however during any certification project (including Field Approvals) the cert checklist is a negotiated item. I just did a gross weight increase STC on several WACO models. Even though the cherry basis was AeroBul 7a, they still made me jump to 23 for ultimate loads to show it would meet Utility requirements (it actually met Aerobatic). Back in the 7a and CAR 4 days there was no normal/utility/aerobatic, it was design to the VN diagram!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
21.101 (b) . . . and any other regulation the FAA finds is directly related. . .

Paragraph c is where it gets interesting. If the FAA finds that the change is significant in an area, the FAA may designate compliance . . . and any regulation that the FAA finds is directly related . . .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Not buying it. Just read over FAR 21.101. The whole thing discusses changes to type certificates. Avionics don't require type certification and installing them does not alter the configuration of a TC'd aircraft.

And this is paragraph (c)
(c) An applicant for a change to an aircraft (other than a rotorcraft) of 6,000 pounds or less maximum weight, or to a non-turbine rotorcraft of 3,000 pounds or less maximum weight may show that the change and areas affected by the change comply with the regulations incorporated by reference in the type certificate. However, if the FAA finds that the change is significant in an area, the FAA may designate compliance with an amendment to the regulation incorporated by reference in the type certificate that applies to the change and any regulation that the FAA finds is directly related, unless the FAA also finds that compliance with that amendment or regulation would not contribute materially to the level of safety of the product or would be impractical.

This is referring to changes great enough to be considered alterations to a type certification.

Web
 

But for batteries;
§ 3.682 Batteries. When an item of electrical equipment which is essential to the safe operation of the airplane is installed, the battery
required shall have sufficient capacity to supply the electrical power necessary for dependable operation of the connected electrical equipment.
§ 3.683 Protection against acid. If batteries are of such a type that corrosive substance may escape during servicing or flight, means such as a completely enclosed compartment shall be provided to prevent such substances from coming in contact with other parts of the airplane which are essential to safe operation. Batteries shall be accessible for servicing and inspection on the ground.
§ 3.684 Battery vents. The battery container or compartment shall be vented in such manner that gases released by the battery are carried outside the airplane.
Nothing mentioned about any certification requirements at all.

Is this how you get an EarthX in a Cub?
 
Some have had field approvals. But most around here have put them in as log entries. Make sure you cite the criteria in CAR 3. If a fed wants to argue, you can point out that you have used parts that comply with these requirements. As a courtesy make sure your IA is ok with this so he doesn't get blindsided by a feds questions.

It's hard to think that an inspector will tell you that you can't comply with a written regulation.

Web
 
Sometimes it's just easier to go along to get along.
If you're gonna have an argument about something, make sure it's worth it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cubpilot2
Avionics installations and approvals
Replies
14
Views
6K
mvivion
mvivion
M
Non-TSO UHF marine radio installation?
Replies
17
Views
9K
TurboBeaver
TurboBeaver
Larry G
Thinking non-electric for exp pa-18 project
2
Replies
48
Views
20K
Lowrider
L
sj
CUBCRAFTERS FIRST TO OFFER NON-TSO’d GLASS PANEL & AUTOPILOT IN PART 23 CERTIFIED AIRCRAFT
Replies
6
Views
10K
sj
sj
S2D
Interesting article
Replies
13
Views
3K
Troy Hamon
T
Back
Top