Type Certificate prohibiting non-TSO’d equipment

[cgrab]

I see allot of nice equipment I would like to use on my plane that has this note that it is not to be used in the airplane if it has a "Type Certificate prohibiting the use of non-TSO’d radios and equipment."

So I read the type certificate on my 1968 Cardinal and it couldn't find anything about TSO. So dose that mean I can install a second radio that is non-TSO'd?

 

[Tom-D]

yes. there is no requirement for TSO in part 91.
135 = different rules

 

[MauleSkinner]

yes. there is no requirement for TSO in part 91.
135 = different rules

So how does them "type certificate" fit into the statement quoted, since a type certificate is neither Part 91 nor 135 specific?

In other words, what would the type certificate language be, and what type can be used as an example?

 

[Tom-D]

So how does them "type certificate" fit into the statement quoted, since a type certificate is neither Part 91 nor 135 specific?

In other words, what would the type certificate language be, and what type can be used as an example?

Your aircraft are built under a production certificate, according to a type certificate. and the equipment that is required to operate is dictated by the rules we operate under.
So, If you operate under part 91 rules you are not required to have TSO'ed equipment.
When multiple models of one make of aircraft such as the Cessna 172 will be listed on one type certificate each model will have its own section of the type certificate, giving the equipment, and pertinent info.
The requirement for TSO'ed equipment isn't a make and model requirement, it is a operating rules requirement.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Your aircraft are built under a production certificate, according to a type certificate. and the equipment that is required to operate is dictated by the rules we operate under.
So, If you operate under part 91 rules you are not required to have TSO'ed equipment.
When multiple models of one make of aircraft such as the Cessna 172 will be listed on one type certificate each model will have its own section of the type certificate, giving the equipment, and pertinent info.
The requirement for TSO'ed equipment isn't a make and model requirement, it is a operating rules requirement.

So the statement quoted from the equipment manufacturer is actually misleading?

 

[kgruber]

Yes.

 

[Bell206]

So the statement quoted from the equipment manufacturer is actually misleading?

Their statement is more CYA. A TSO(A) is not an installation approval only a manufacture approval. The installer must determine if the TSO item can be installed in their aircraft just like a non-TSO item.

 

[bnt83]

Every new integrated radio that has at least one TSO also is loaded with functions that are NOT approved.

GTN-650, GTX-345, GNC 255

So many things that Garmin even has a section in each installation manual that shows exactly what those are.

section 1.14.1 "Non-TSO Functions"

http://joesrv12.com/Garmin/GTX 345 TSO 190-01499-02_4.pdf

 

[cgrab]

Well now I am even more confused. Part 91 mentions several instruments but no avionics other than a "suitable" two way radio for IFR flight (91-205 (d) (2). Also, which FAR? the one in effect when the plane was certified or the current one?

 

[Bell206]

Well now I am even more confused. Part 91 mentions several instruments but no avionics other than a "suitable" two way radio for IFR flight (91-205 (d) (2). Also, which FAR? the one in effect when the plane was certified or the current one?

No confusion. Pick the nice equipment you want to install in your 1968 Cardinal, talk to your A&P/IA, work out a method to install it legally, and enjoy it. Simple.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Well now I am even more confused. Part 91 mentions several instruments but no avionics other than a "suitable" two way radio for IFR flight (91-205 (d) (2). Also, which FAR? the one in effect when the plane was certified or the current one?

For modification purposes, the certification rules in place when the airplane was certified are controlling. The TCDS has a "certification basis" section that specifies the set of regs used.

 

[cgrab]

OK, looks like I'll be breaking my piggy bank open this spring but may have a few pennies left by summer.

 

[Tom-D]

No confusion. Pick the nice equipment you want to install in your 1968 Cardinal, talk to your A&P/IA, work out a method to install it legally, and enjoy it. Simple.

This is very easy to do. part 91 does not require TSO, but it does require PMA, or prior authorization for use.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Their statement is more CYA. A TSO(A) is not an installation approval only a manufacture approval. The installer must determine if the TSO item can be installed in their aircraft just like a non-TSO item.

Possibly a boilerplate statement to comply wth 21.9(b)?

§21.9 Replacement and modification articles.
(a) If a person knows, or should know, that a replacement or modification article is reasonably likely to be installed on a type-certificated product, the person may not produce that article unless it is—

(1) Produced under a type certificate;

(2) Produced under an FAA production approval;

(3) A standard part (such as a nut or bolt) manufactured in compliance with a government or established industry specification;

(4) A commercial part as defined in §21.1 of this part;

(5) Produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering that owner or operator's product;

(6) Fabricated by an appropriately rated certificate holder with a quality system, and consumed in the repair or alteration of a product or article in accordance with part 43 of this chapter; or

(7) Produced in any other manner approved by the FAA.

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this section, a person who produces a replacement or modification article for sale may not represent that part as suitable for installation on a type-certificated product.

(c) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(2) of this section, a person may not sell or represent an article as suitable for installation on an aircraft type-certificated under §§21.25(a)(2) or 21.27 unless that article—

(1) Was declared surplus by the U.S. Armed Forces, and

(2) Was intended for use on that aircraft model by the U.S. Armed Forces.

 

[kontiki]

I recommend that you go to the FAAs web page and read the explanation on what TSOs are. Typically the regulations that specify equippage of some kind, do not include a detailed technical description of what the device must do in the regulations themselves. They point to a TSO, which may point to other even more detailed specifications, if the complexity warrants it. For example fars point to a tso on transponders. That Tso recognizes specific RTCA operational performance specifications that are several thousand pages long.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

This is very easy to do. part 91 does not require TSO, but it does require PMA, or prior authorization for use.

Nope.....PMA is not for that reason....and TSO is for "required" equipment under the TC.

 

[Bell206]

Possibly a boilerplate statement to comply wth 21.9(b)?

It’s possible but a lot of those statements were moved to the forefront after the implementation of FAR Part 3 around 2005.

 

[Bell206]

TSO is for "required" equipment under the TC.

Not quite. A TC, STC, PC, PMA, TSOA, etc are all manufacture/production approvals and standards. They can be intermixed as most STCs use PMA and TSOA parts for example. However, once an aircraft is certified at the factory it falls to the owner/installer what rules they wish to follow in repairing or altering the aircraft.

There are some basic requirements depending on ops type, but if an owner chooses, they can basically install anything they want provided they research/develop the necessary data and make the required entries. And that includes using TSO parts or not.

 

[pmanton]

When I was up in Tom's neck of the woods I had a PMI that was very easy to work with. Field Approvals were not only possible but easy. However if you'd even mention "Non TSO"
He'd have a canary.

 

[Tom-D]

Nope.....PMA is not for that reason....and TSO is for "required" equipment under the TC.

If you are going to use replacement parts that do not have PMA you must show some authorization to use them. the only exception would be common AN MS hardware.

 

[ChiefPilot]

If you are going to use replacement parts that do not have PMA you must show some authorization to use them. the only exception would be common AN MS hardware.

Not the only exception. FAR 21.9 has a list of possibilities, including owner-produced parts.

 

[Tom-D]

Not the only exception. FAR 21.9 has a list of possibilities, including owner-produced parts.

Owner produced parts have a method of authorization.
This regulation is often mis-read :
(5) Produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering that owner or operator's product;
Is a Cessna or piper the owner's/operator's product?

The argument is, just because you own or operate any item does that make it your product. If this were true, the liability laws making the manufacturers not responsible after the sale

 

[ChiefPilot]

Owner produced parts have a method of authorization.
This regulation is often mis-read :
(5) Produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering that owner or operator's product;
Is a Cessna or piper the owner's/operator's product?

It's who owns the aircraft. If I damage a skin on my personally owned Cessna 152, for example, I can make a new one using the same materials and design as the original and have it installed by an A&P. This is pretty common thing, actually, especially for older aircraft.

 

[Tom-D]

It's who owns the aircraft.

Got a legal reference for that?

 

[ChiefPilot]

Got a legal reference for that?

In fact, yes. Donald Byrne issued a memo clarifying exactly this in 1993. If the name doesn't ring a bell, he was an assistant chief council for regulation at the FAA. A scanned copy of this memo is available at http://www.velocolutions.com/FAA-owner-manufactured-part.pdf .

Mike Busch did an article around the subject that explains the memo and it's implications in greater detail which may also be of interest:
https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2011-08_owner-produced-parts.pdf

Owner produced parts aren't a free-for-all; there are some hurdles to be sure. But they are in many cases a viable alternative to PMA'd parts that may be unrealistically expensive or perhaps even unavailable.

 

[Tom-D]

In fact, yes. Donald Byrne issued a memo clarifying exactly this in 1993. If the name doesn't ring a bell, he was an assistant chief council for regulation at the FAA. A scanned copy of this memo is available at http://www.velocolutions.com/FAA-owner-manufactured-part.pdf .

Mike Busch did an article around the subject that explains the memo and it's implications in greater detail which may also be of interest:
https://www.savvyaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/articles_eaa/EAA_2011-08_owner-produced-parts.pdf

Owner produced parts aren't a free-for-all; there are some hurdles to be sure. But they are in many cases a viable alternative to PMA'd parts that may be unrealistically expensive or perhaps even unavailable.

Two issues here, Mike bush is neither a FAA employee that can give opinions that stand the legal test.
Your reference does not deal with the issue in contention here.

Is the item a person's own product just because they own or operate it.

Your reference show us who can build a part, and how it may be used in a repair. I build skins and spars as a repair to an assembly all the time as an A&P that is what we are allowed to do.

The courts are full of cases that the manufacturers are sued for liability on products, If your reading of the rule is true and just because the product was owned or operated it was the owners product there would be no bases for the suit.

 

[ChiefPilot]

Two issues here, Mike bush is neither a FAA employee that can give opinions that stand the legal test.
Your reference does not deal with the issue in contention here.

You seem to ignore the first link which contains the interpretation from an FAA lawyer. However, no one will force you to use parts you produce on your own airplane, so ignore if you wish.

 

[Tom-D]

You seem to ignore the first link which contains the interpretation from an FAA lawyer.

Still, your reference doesn't deal with who's product it is.

Cessna or Piper produced it, it is their product. If it was your product the production certificate would be in your name.

very poorly written rule to say the least.

 

[Bell206]

Still, your reference doesn't deal with who's product it is.

Here is another definition from AC 20-62E:

n. Owner/Operator Produced Part. Parts that were produced by an owner/operator for installation on their own aircraft (i.e., by a certificated air carrier). An owner/operator is considered a producer of a part, if the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part. Participating in the design of the part can include supervising the manufacture of the part or providing the manufacturer with the following: the design data, the materials with which to make the part, the fabrication processes, assembly methods, or the quality control (QC) procedures.

Owner/operator produced parts are applicable to all ops. Part 135/121 operators regularly produce parts for their aircraft under the same rules (21.9) that a 91 owner can. There a several more examples within FAA guidance but the LOI referenced above from 1993 is the go to one. My first task at my old 135 day job was replacing OEM parts on brand new helicopters with our owner produced parts as part of the preparation to enter service. The OEM parts always deteriorated within months.

 

[bradg33]

Still, your reference doesn't deal with who's product it is.

Cessna or Piper produced it, it is their product. If it was your product the production certificate would be in your name.

very poorly written rule to say the least.

That's quite possibly the most bizarre interpretation of the owner-produced parts rule I've ever read.

 

[Tom-D]

Here is another definition from AC 20-62E:

n. Owner/Operator Produced Part. Parts that were produced by an owner/operator for installation on their own aircraft (i.e., by a certificated air carrier).

This is the only reference the FAA gives for that.

and it is in an AC, not rule or regulation.

 

[Tom-D]

An owner/operator is considered a producer of a part, if the owner participated in controlling the design, manufacture, or quality of the part. Participating in the design of the part can include supervising the manufacture of the part or providing the manufacturer with the following: the design data, the materials with which to make the part, the fabrication processes, assembly methods, or the quality control (QC) procedures.

That is not what we are contending.
My question still is. who's product is an aircraft built by a company other than the owner?

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

That is not what we are contending.
My question still is. who's product is an aircraft built by a company other than the owner?

who cares?....and who certifies it?

 

[Bell206]

This is the only reference the FAA gives for that.

No. I said it was another example. The first example was via the 1993 LOI above. There are several other FAA references if you choose to look for them or maybe a simple call to your PMI will assist you. Matter of fact I think there was an article by Bill O'Brien on the topic. Would you believe him? Owner/operator produced parts have been around for decades and are legally produced everyday with no problems.

 

[Tom-D]

No. I said it was another example.

Show me where in the LOI above where it tells what a product is.

Your product, is something that you produce.

 

[Bell206]

Your product, is something that you produce.

Not quite. That maybe the definition in WA, but a product in FAA lingo means: an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller. 21.1(b)(6)

Owner produced parts are also technically called articles (29.9 title statement) which means: a material, part, component, process, or appliance. 21.1(b)(2)

So using the appropriate definitions above and basic grammar rules, if you look to Part 21.9(a)(5): Produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering that owner or operator's product... The portion "that owner or operator's" shows possession or ownership of the aforementioned mentioned "product" which means their aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller. You really need to get out a little bit more.

 

[Tom-D]

Not quite. That maybe the definition in WA, but a product in FAA lingo means: an aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller. 21.1(b)(6)

Owner produced parts are also technically called articles (29.9 title statement) which means: a material, part, component, process, or appliance. 21.1(b)(2)

So using the appropriate definitions above and basic grammar rules, if you look to Part 21.9(a)(5): Produced by an owner or operator for maintaining or altering that owner or operator's product... The portion "that owner or operator's" shows possession or ownership of the aforementioned mentioned "product" which means their aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller. You really need to get out a little bit more.

OK I'll agree with that.