Does anyone have a 337 for ICOM IC-A210?

If you will tell me what is MAJOR about a REPAIR or ALTERATION for installing a simple com radio, I'll see if I have anything in the files.

Jim
 
philiplane said:
It's not a TSO'd radio, so it has no Certification Basis to be used in a Type Certificated airplane.
Click to expand...


I loved your "timing" post. Now, I'd like to know why a 337 has been issued for a ICOM IC-A200 (non TSO)..............but not for the improved model IC-A210?
 

Attachments

  • Form 337 example.pdf
    154.8 KB · Views: 22
Because some IA filed it and it looked reasonable so the FAA signed it.
That doesn't alter the fact that it likely wasn't required.

It also doesn't address the issue that TSO is neither necessary nor suffiicent for com radio installation in most light aircraft.
 
Sure, just because it doesn't have a TSO doesn't mean you can't install it.
Just because it does have a TSO doesn't mean you can.

Don't know how much plainer I can get than that. Sometimes a TSO is required. Sometimes, it's acceptable data. Sometimes it just means it complied with a TSO.

As far as a com radio in a light plane not being used in part 135, TSO is largely meaningless. It's not a major modification unless you have to make structural changes and the TSO won't help with that either.
 
Looking at the Icom, I noticed it's just a comm radio. So yes, no TSO required.

Radios that integrate navigation capabilities like a Garmin 430 require TSO and are installed under an STC or Field Approval (for the Flight Manual Supplement) because they change the Kinds Of Operations the plane can perform. In that case, flying IFR GPS, is a new Operation that the original plane could not do.
 
philiplane said:
Looking at the Icom, I noticed it's just a comm radio. So yes, no TSO required.

Radios that integrate navigation capabilities like a Garmin 430 require TSO and are installed under an STC or Field Approval (for the Flight Manual Supplement) because they change the Kinds Of Operations the plane can perform. In that case, flying IFR GPS, is a new Operation that the original plane could not do.
Click to expand...

Specifically, an IFR GPS must meet various TSOs even in Part 91 ops. A straight up navcom does not even though it "integrates" a navigation capability into a single box.
 
philiplane said:
It's not a TSO'd radio, so it has no Certification Basis to be used in a Type Certificated airplane.
Click to expand...

That is an interesting heresy ... not true, and you are absolutely wrong.

TSO stands for Technical Standard Order. That sets technical standards for a particular piece of equipment. WHether or not it meets the TSO has ABSOLUTELY no basis for installation in the airplane.

Do me a favor. Find the TSO for the venerable Narco MK-12 radio that we installed in thousands of aircraft in the '50s, '60s, and into the 70s. No TSO. No approval other than "well it LOOKS like an airplane radio to me..."

Same for tens of thousands of Genave NavComs. Not a single FAA "approval"

Same for Icom. Same for RST. Same for Becker. Same for ... you name it.

THanks,

Jim
 
I am so glad I stumbled across these forums recently. I was always of the understanding that "only certified things can go in certified planes". This forum fixed that rumor for me, which means the plane we just bought doesn't need to have all it's radios ripped out!
 
You misunderstand Pedals.

There are three issues here:

1. Whether it is a major modification. If it is a major modification (which this is not unless you have to do something structural to install it), you need to have an STC or "data acceptable to the administrator." If you have an STC you file it with the 337, if you just have data then you file the 337.

2. Authoirty to install. This means that the part is legal in this particular airplane. In some cases a TSO or PMA may suffice, in some cases a TSO is required. In other cases, the manufacturer of the plane already has gotten the parts approval. In some cases like hardware, acceptable standards like milspec's suffice.

3. Authority to manufacture...i.e., this is a legally produced aircraft part. This can be done by the manufacturer under a production certificate, it's inherent in the TSOA and PMA approvals, and in some cases can even be done by the owner for making parts for his own plane. Again, certain parts like hardware just need to meet industry standard (milspecs, or whatever).

A TSO is not necessary for a com radio installation in a light plane not used for 135.
An STC is not necessary.
A 337 is not necessary.
(you can use those if you want, but they're not necessary).

The part must be a legitimate aircraft radio (the FAA also defers to the FCC for type approval on these).

Of course all the rest of part 43 applies.
 
Oh no, I understand completely, exactly as you just explained. I should have elaborated. The plane we bought had a non TSO radio in it, generally geared towards the experimental market. When I learned the above information, it meant we did not need to replace it with a "certified" radio.

My understanding is that an owner can swap radios that do not require changes to the tray and wiring. Basically your plug-n-play variety. One-for-one replacements that don't require reconfiguring trays and wiring.

Meaning if I wanted to pull out the radios and trays, and install different radios, I as an owner could not do that? Is that correct?
 
No, as an owner you can slide radios out of a tray, and slide replacements back in. But you can't change the trays or wiring.

Classic example is replacing an old King KX170B with a slide-in TKM digital replacement. An owner can do that. He just can't install one from scratch with new trays and wiring.
 
philiplane said:
No, as an owner you can slide radios out of a tray, and slide replacements back in. But you can't change the trays or wiring.

Classic example is replacing an old King KX170B with a slide-in TKM digital replacement. An owner can do that. He just can't install one from scratch with new trays and wiring.
Click to expand...

This is how Weight and Balance and Equipment Lists get all messed up.
 
philiplane said:
No, as an owner you can slide radios out of a tray, and slide replacements back in. But you can't change the trays or wiring.

Classic example is replacing an old King KX170B with a slide-in TKM digital replacement. An owner can do that. He just can't install one from scratch with new trays and wiring.
Click to expand...

OK, that's what I thought.

weirdjim said:
That is not correct. You can do anything that your airframe mechanic is willing to sign off in the logbook.
Click to expand...
Of course with that exception.


bnt83 said:
This is how Weight and Balance and Equipment Lists get all messed up.
Click to expand...
And then there's that. Can an owner update the equipment list and WB in these circumstances? Or do we need to pay someone to do math and cross off items?
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
nd then there's that. Can an owner update the equipment list and WB in these circumstances? Or do we need to pay someone to do math and cross off items?
Click to expand...

Oh, Yeesus Yingle, here we go on this one again. Somebody post the header for this thread if you remember it.

Thanks,

Jim
 
I presume that would be a no? And I presume this discussion will now devolve?
 
Owner cannot remove radio, instrument, cabin chair part # ABC and install part # DEF. That is an alteration not preventative maintenance. It doesn't matter if they claim its a "slide in replacement".

Transponders and encoding systems are even more restrictive.

There are instances where no one, not even the FAA, would care. For instance, installing a AA48108-2 (Tempest) instead of a CH48108-2 (Champion) engine oil filter.
 
Remove AND replace doesn't require a W&B change

It's actually transponders, DME, and autopilots. I've never seen an encoder that was "front panel removeable" as the regulation would require.
 
flyingron said:
I've never seen an encoder that was "front panel removeable" as the regulation would require.
Click to expand...

To quote one Ron Natalie, "eventually if you trace the power lead back it will get to the landing light, which is a permissible item..." :yes:


Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top