VAL INS422 TSO vs INS429 nonTSO

A

asicer

Final Approach
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
9,559
Display Name
Display name:
asicer
asicer said:
why their current product is non-TSO but the previous ones were TSO?
Click to expand...
Its better to give them a call. They have always been upfront on the TSO/non-TSO reasons in my experience.
 
Just a guess, maybe they used to try and sell to the non-part 91 market. Didn't see much business so they dropped the TSO version and now just sell to the GA market.
 
donjohnston said:
so they dropped the TSO version
Click to expand...
FYI: Most units that have a TSO and non-TSO version are made on the same production line with the only difference in the TSO tag and in some cases what software features are locked or unlocked.
 
asicer said:
Yeah, but the FAA published a nastygram saying that if you have an INS429 in a certified plane under part 91 then you need to yank it out ASAP lest it explode or something.
Click to expand...
FYI: that letter caused a bit of a stir but in the end was quietly set off to the side. Besides a UPN is merely advisory and is not regulatory so it cannot force the removal of that equipment and if it was a true airworthiness issue an AD would have been issued. However, once Val cleaned up their "advertising" snafu they put out the article below to assist those who may still have a question about a non-TSO part in a TC'd aircraft. Bottomline, it falls to the installer under Part 43 who determines what is acceptable to install in the aircraft and not Part 21 rules. This is no different than the discussion of "experimental" parts vs "certified" parts.
https://www.valavionics.com/installation-in-type-certificated-aircraft.html
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: that letter caused a bit of a stir but in the end was quietly set off to the side. Besides a UPN is merely advisory and is not regulatory so it cannot force the removal of that equipment and if it was a true airworthiness issue an AD would have been issued. However, once Val cleaned up their "advertising" snafu they put out the article below to assist those who may still have a question about a non-TSO part in a TC'd aircraft. Bottomline, it falls to the installer under Part 43 who determines what is acceptable to install in the aircraft and not Part 21 rules. This is no different than the discussion of "experimental" parts vs "certified" parts.
https://www.valavionics.com/installation-in-type-certificated-aircraft.html
Click to expand...
Ah, OK. I was not aware that the webpage came after the FAA letter. I thought it was the other way around.
 
asicer said:
I was not aware that the webpage came after the FAA letter. I thought it was the other way around.
Click to expand...
That is my understanding. There are also other documents that go further into UPN and add more details but it appeared it was more just a Seattle MIDO "issue." The key part of the UPN is to read the first 2 paragraphs in the "recommendations" section which plainly states the VAL units were not produced per Part 21 which they are not being no TSO and that the installer makes the determination on the eligibility of the part. There was also a separate issue in that some radios were installed as a "replacement" part which by regulation is required to be a Part 21 certified part. However, if that same part is installed as an "alteration" there is no Part 21 requirement. And so on.
 
Bell206 said:
That is my understanding. There are also other documents that go further into UPN and add more details but it appeared it was more just a Seattle MIDO "issue." The key part of the UPN is to read the first 2 paragraphs in the "recommendations" section which plainly states the VAL units were not produced per Part 21 which they are not being no TSO and that the installer makes the determination on the eligibility of the part. There was also a separate issue in that some radios were installed as a "replacement" part which by regulation is required to be a Part 21 certified part. However, if that same part is installed as an "alteration" there is no Part 21 requirement. And so on.
Click to expand...

I'm currently looking to purchase this unit. So, I called the company and was told that the product was built to TSO standards. However, they didn't complete the part, which was to basically have the FAA oversee the quality control process to receive the TSO Certificated Status for updating the product. The reason I believe was the cost to do so.

Val Avionics stated to me that since this unit’s technology is so old and is commonly considered as an industry standard technology. The specification from the previous model has been used in the updated model. My understanding of the UPN 21.9 is that they can should produce the part if they believe its likely to be installed in a TSO aircraft. The link on Val Avionics website is correct. I don’t see anywhere that it states its required. I reached out to an A&P IA and he agreed with VAL that this is considered a minor alteration and only a log book entry would be required by an A&P. Any thoughts or opinions. Im leaning on having it installed, but have my local FSDO approve to cover my bases.


https://www.valavionics.com/installation-in-type-certificated-aircraft.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top