Approved instruments
Thread Starter
Approved instruments
CASA requires that even private VFR flight even in an experimental aircraft, requires the presence of
1 magnetic compass.
2. Altimeter.
3. Airspeed indicator.
A serviceable watch meets the timepiece requirement
Furthermore, each of these items is required to be of an approved type, generally TSO'd.
Similarly, if radio is required for airspace or landing area, it too must be of an approved type.
Is there an exception to this rule anywhere? I can't find one. Furthermore, if it is certified, how can it be installed by an unlicensed person?
That means that the new Dynon radio, and a host of other stuff is illegal to
Use here.
I'm starting to think about cutting my losses.
1 magnetic compass.
2. Altimeter.
3. Airspeed indicator.
A serviceable watch meets the timepiece requirement
Furthermore, each of these items is required to be of an approved type, generally TSO'd.
Similarly, if radio is required for airspace or landing area, it too must be of an approved type.
Is there an exception to this rule anywhere? I can't find one. Furthermore, if it is certified, how can it be installed by an unlicensed person?
That means that the new Dynon radio, and a host of other stuff is illegal to
Use here.
I'm starting to think about cutting my losses.
Last edited by Sunfish; 12th Apr 2013 at 21:49.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK, no TSO'd instruments required in a non-certified aircraft.
Just get the cheapest, nastiest stuff you can find on Aircraft Spruce and you'll be good!
As for radios, the way I understand it, anything FCC (yes, FCC, not FAA) approved is fair game.
That includes local Australian made radios like X-Com too, by the way!
Just get the cheapest, nastiest stuff you can find on Aircraft Spruce and you'll be good!
As for radios, the way I understand it, anything FCC (yes, FCC, not FAA) approved is fair game.
That includes local Australian made radios like X-Com too, by the way!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunny aren't you a member of the SAAA and have you looked at their comprehensive website?
If you look for the article by David Francis you'll see that you only need for the transponder to be TSO'ed and most of them are these days. You also only need an approved radio for Night VFR.
The only dodgey thing I've seen around where you are headed is using the Dynon's non-TSO'ed built in altitude encoder coupled to a TSO'ed Garmin Transponder or similar.
Why not look at the Levin AHRS unit that talks to the iPad via wifi. For around a grand plus iPad you have a unit similar to the Dynon display at a fraction of the cost and software updates are the only limit for what can be displayed.
If you look for the article by David Francis you'll see that you only need for the transponder to be TSO'ed and most of them are these days. You also only need an approved radio for Night VFR.
The only dodgey thing I've seen around where you are headed is using the Dynon's non-TSO'ed built in altitude encoder coupled to a TSO'ed Garmin Transponder or similar.
Why not look at the Levin AHRS unit that talks to the iPad via wifi. For around a grand plus iPad you have a unit similar to the Dynon display at a fraction of the cost and software updates are the only limit for what can be displayed.
Thread Starter
Checked a stack of CASRS and CAAPS and they don't say what any of you said........
They leave you dangling, which appears to be CASAs preferred position...
CAAP 42ZC:
Says that CASA exemption 13/13 allows us to fit unapproves products.
it does not.
What the CAAP DOES say is that a LAME must do the maintenance on any instrumetns required for IFR flight.
http://www.saaa.com/Portals/0/PDFs/42zc_2.pdf
They leave you dangling, which appears to be CASAs preferred position...
CAAP 42ZC:
Says that CASA exemption 13/13 allows us to fit unapproves products.
it does not.
What the CAAP DOES say is that a LAME must do the maintenance on any instrumetns required for IFR flight.
1 The exemption does not apply to:
(a) maintenance of aircraft instruments and equipment specifically required by CAR 1988 or the Civil Aviation Orders; or
(b) maintenance related to a condition of the special certificate of airworthiness or experimental certificate for the aircraft; or
(c) maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Directive or a direction issued by CASA applicable to the aircraft; or
(d) maintenance related to an instruction specified in the aircraft’s approved maintenance data.
(a) maintenance of aircraft instruments and equipment specifically required by CAR 1988 or the Civil Aviation Orders; or
(b) maintenance related to a condition of the special certificate of airworthiness or experimental certificate for the aircraft; or
(c) maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Directive or a direction issued by CASA applicable to the aircraft; or
(d) maintenance related to an instruction specified in the aircraft’s approved maintenance data.
Last edited by Sunfish; 13th Apr 2013 at 21:47.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way I didn't even mention IFR because I was under the impression that this was not relevant to you.
Many aircraft including GA registered LSA aircraft do not have TSO'ed instruments.
Many aircraft including GA registered LSA aircraft do not have TSO'ed instruments.
Thread Starter
Building fatigue. I'm almost finished the airframe. I then have to decide to spring for the engine.
I think I need to get current again and remind myself why I am doing all this.
I think I need to get current again and remind myself why I am doing all this.
Thread Starter
Thank you Creampuff. Project13/01 confirms what I think I've read: Unless there is some exemption for experimental aircraft, which I cannot find, then the compass, altimeter and airspeed systems must be TSO'd or approved specifically by CASA for any Australian aircraft.
Furthermore, radio equipment must also comply with TSO's if it is required by regulation in a particular class of airspace or operation.
The only let out I can see is if it is approved by a part 35 delegate, which I don't know about yet.
So you commit an offence under part 91 if you fly with an uncertified required instrument. And it's 50 penalty units. , and it says nothing about being only applicable to IFR, despite the commentary.
What now concerns me is if the installation is also required to be approved.
Furthermore, radio equipment must also comply with TSO's if it is required by regulation in a particular class of airspace or operation.
The only let out I can see is if it is approved by a part 35 delegate, which I don't know about yet.
So you commit an offence under part 91 if you fly with an uncertified required instrument. And it's 50 penalty units. , and it says nothing about being only applicable to IFR, despite the commentary.
What now concerns me is if the installation is also required to be approved.
Last edited by Sunfish; 15th Apr 2013 at 06:50.
So you commit an offence under part 91 if you fly with an uncertified required instrument. And it's 50 penalty units. , and it says nothing about being only applicable to IFR, despite the commentary.
What now concerns me is if the installation is also required to be approved.
What now concerns me is if the installation is also required to be approved.
Sunfish
Drop a PM to Jabawocky. He's coordinating an industry response to that CASA Project, which, according to CASA, is going to 'formalise' the regulatory position you've summarised.
I don't think Part 91 is law yet. The Project aims to amend the current old rules pending Part 91 becoming law in 2003 ... ("Safety through Clarity" is going to be fantastic!)
Drop a PM to Jabawocky. He's coordinating an industry response to that CASA Project, which, according to CASA, is going to 'formalise' the regulatory position you've summarised.
I don't think Part 91 is law yet. The Project aims to amend the current old rules pending Part 91 becoming law in 2003 ... ("Safety through Clarity" is going to be fantastic!)
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Furthermore, radio equipment must also comply with TSO's if it is required by regulation in a particular class of airspace or operation.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
("Safety through Clarity" is going to be fantastic!)
I think Sunny you need a lot more help. How about you PM me so I can put you in touch with a CASA AP that knows his stuff.......and far better than I do.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
That would mean that a GA registered LSA aircraft such as a Jabiru could be filled with non-TSO'ed instruments and as long as it's approved under ATSM LSA standards, it's all good ! (in fact, the are full of Chinese instruments!)
The instrument guy also said CASA had told them not to fix or calibrate chinese altimeters.
Thread Starter
Thank you for your helpful comments.
With respect to the Cosi Fan Tutti argument (Everybody is doing it) about using non approved gear, I am afraid I'm not a believer for Three reasons:
1. I have to consider the possibility that CASA knows what it is talking about and that there really is significantly increased risk in using a Non approved ASI and Altimeter. Yes I know, it sounds strange to think that the regulator might be right, but they make the rules. I know nothing about instrument accuracy. Until the rules change for VFR instruments, I have to follow them for my own safety, let alone others. As for IFR required instruments being approved, of course they should be.
2. I am a strong believer in Murphys law. It will be just my luck to get ramped and you can bet that if the question of VFR instrument approval requirements is not addressed and the law is changed as per the project, then you can bet that Inspectors will check the instruments and at least ground you if they don't comply. The RAA has found out the hard way that CASA has no compunction about enforcing the rules, nor should they, even if it does ground a signifigant portion of the fleet. Furthermore, a sudden series of orders amounting to a thousand or so certified altimeters might strain supply chains a little.
3. Not fitting an altimeter and ASI is not an option. Not only do the rules require them, I am acutely conscious of what can happen to reasonably sophisticated electronic systems where an intermittent fault can produce bizarre navigational results. I have had it happen to me and you can get confused very very quickly. The only safe immediate action in that situation is to switch off the glass screen and go back to Compass, Altimeter and ASI.
Then there is the question of radios. Dynon have just released what appears to be a delicious one. However Dynon says it ain't certified by anyone and isn't going to be. Not only does a radio have to be approved by the communication authority, CASA also has a series of operational requirements for aviation radios.
Some of you would be aware of the plea from the YMMB tower to help them track down a current source of interference, don't add to the problem.
To put it another way, if you make the entire experimental CofA approval process into a sham, then you are asking for trouble.
With respect to the Cosi Fan Tutti argument (Everybody is doing it) about using non approved gear, I am afraid I'm not a believer for Three reasons:
1. I have to consider the possibility that CASA knows what it is talking about and that there really is significantly increased risk in using a Non approved ASI and Altimeter. Yes I know, it sounds strange to think that the regulator might be right, but they make the rules. I know nothing about instrument accuracy. Until the rules change for VFR instruments, I have to follow them for my own safety, let alone others. As for IFR required instruments being approved, of course they should be.
2. I am a strong believer in Murphys law. It will be just my luck to get ramped and you can bet that if the question of VFR instrument approval requirements is not addressed and the law is changed as per the project, then you can bet that Inspectors will check the instruments and at least ground you if they don't comply. The RAA has found out the hard way that CASA has no compunction about enforcing the rules, nor should they, even if it does ground a signifigant portion of the fleet. Furthermore, a sudden series of orders amounting to a thousand or so certified altimeters might strain supply chains a little.
3. Not fitting an altimeter and ASI is not an option. Not only do the rules require them, I am acutely conscious of what can happen to reasonably sophisticated electronic systems where an intermittent fault can produce bizarre navigational results. I have had it happen to me and you can get confused very very quickly. The only safe immediate action in that situation is to switch off the glass screen and go back to Compass, Altimeter and ASI.
Then there is the question of radios. Dynon have just released what appears to be a delicious one. However Dynon says it ain't certified by anyone and isn't going to be. Not only does a radio have to be approved by the communication authority, CASA also has a series of operational requirements for aviation radios.
Some of you would be aware of the plea from the YMMB tower to help them track down a current source of interference, don't add to the problem.
To put it another way, if you make the entire experimental CofA approval process into a sham, then you are asking for trouble.
Last edited by Sunfish; 15th Apr 2013 at 21:35.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple solution for you then is to purchase a TSO'ed ASI and Alt. Easy. Worst case, a second hand one from a broken Cessna or similar. Compasses are 2 a penny as they say.
I'm not sold on the radio being TSO'ed though as potentially 40%+ of the Australian aircraft fleet including RA-Aus have non TSO'ed radios.
I'm not sold on the radio being TSO'ed though as potentially 40%+ of the Australian aircraft fleet including RA-Aus have non TSO'ed radios.
Thread Starter
VH - xxx:
TSO'D gear will be purchased.
If 40% of the fleet have non CASA approved radios, then 40% of the fleet are breaching CAO 108.34.
http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao108/10834.pdf
VH-XXX The simple solution for you then is to purchase a TSO'ed ASI and Alt. Easy. Worst case, a second hand one from a broken Cessna or similar. Compasses are 2 a penny as they say.
I'm not sold on the radio being TSO'ed though as potentially 40%+ of the Australian aircraft fleet including RA-Aus have non TSO'ed radios.
I'm not sold on the radio being TSO'ed though as potentially 40%+ of the Australian aircraft fleet including RA-Aus have non TSO'ed radios.
If 40% of the fleet have non CASA approved radios, then 40% of the fleet are breaching CAO 108.34.
http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao108/10834.pdf
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that the problem lies within your use terminology for "approved" versus "TSO'ed." Be careful with that as there is sometimes a reason for it.
Have a look at the very last page of the above publication and you'll see that the Microair transceiver is listed there.
http://microair.com.au/admin/uploads...Aapproval1.pdf
The Microair as an example was approved by CASA before TSO testing was invented, back in the 90's so it's not TSO'ed but it IS approved.
The Microair transponder on the other hand, is TSO'ed as it was manufactured and approved after TSO was invented.
You'll need to do some careful research to determine which instrument is right for you based on information from the manufacturer.
Based on your evidence and articles my jury is out on whether or not experimental needs TSO'ed anything for Day VFR.
When you work it all out let me know as I'm about to buy some stuff for NVFR
Have a look at the very last page of the above publication and you'll see that the Microair transceiver is listed there.
http://microair.com.au/admin/uploads...Aapproval1.pdf
The Microair as an example was approved by CASA before TSO testing was invented, back in the 90's so it's not TSO'ed but it IS approved.
The Microair transponder on the other hand, is TSO'ed as it was manufactured and approved after TSO was invented.
You'll need to do some careful research to determine which instrument is right for you based on information from the manufacturer.
Based on your evidence and articles my jury is out on whether or not experimental needs TSO'ed anything for Day VFR.
When you work it all out let me know as I'm about to buy some stuff for NVFR