ragedracer1977

Apparently so. Show me the hard data on how many people have it. How many have been tested in the US? Look at Chinas numbers. Do you believe them? We won't have any real idea for quite a while. The study on the Diamond Princess suggests up to 50% of those infected don't show any symptoms at all. https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180

I didn't so don't worry about it. I said don't fear monger. We don't know if it's 10x mortality rate. We have absolutely no idea how many people have it, and therefore can't possibly do more than guess. Further, the mortality rate for children is ZERO.

My heart is still racing. I was on about a 2 mile final to 7L. Configured. Everything looking good. Suddenly I saw motion out the right window. It was a Piper Arrow. He came up from under in a hard right bank. He was landing parallel on 7R. He was close enough that I couldn't see either wingtip. Just the fuselage and part of each wing. CLOSE and getting closer. Without even having to think about it, I jammed the left rudder pedal to the floor and pushed. I think, without formation practice, I would have yanked aileron and assuredly would have hit him. Be careful out there.

Please don't fear monger. We have no idea what the mortality rate is.

Your empty CG is wrong. Max forward CG is 42”. Max aft CG Is 49”. You’re showing your empty CG to be 53.64”. That can’t be right.

I agree they're valuable. It's nice to know that if somehow I lost all my 337s I could get them from the FAA. It's also nice for the next owner to know that whatever was done to the plane was done with the best intentions to do it right.

I wonder what the point of a 337 is at this point then. If they're defacto approving them by adding them to an aircrafts records, and they're saying an IA is authorized to make his own determinations without asking anybody, at what point does it even matter anymore.

If that is ok, then the charger in my original post is too. It's not TSO. Not PMA. No STC.

Sometimes I wonder about the FAA... Total topic shift. A friend of mine is a LEO and a pilot. He does a lot of drug interdiction stuff. Last week, he attended a"seminar" down at AVQ put on by the FAA on how to identify people who are moving drugs. The main indicator? They're flying an airplane. Yup. Airplanes are expensive. Pilots will do anything to afford to fly. Hell, the head FAA guy took them out on the ramp to look at airplanes. Somehow the topic of IFR vs VFR airplanescame up. The FAA guy said you could tell which airplanes were VFR only, because they didn't have "computers" in the dash. My friend asked what that had to do with anything. The guy seriously believed that a plane had to have a bunch of computers in the dash to be IFR legal. He didn't know you could fly IFR with just radios.

You got there before I did. I've been trying to steer it that way lol. There's a LOT of parts that meet the definitions set forth in that AC.

$200 isn't really worth it. I don't want to be the guinea pig lol

I guarantee I could get my IA to sign off on the charger I posted in the original post. I still won't install it, because the next IA or buyer might not feel the same way my IA did.

Somehow I've never made it to page. Want to do lunch sometime?

I don't want to use the TSO. I want it to be a standard part. Since I used previously approved data, why wouldn't it be? All of these chargers are essentially the same. How about the one I actually bought. The Guardian Avionics. No TSO No PMA. Produced under NORSEE. FAA approved. At what point does a part become a standard part? If building it exactly the same, how could it not be? And, yes. I know I'm being obtuse. Indulge me. I'm entertaining myself.

Ok, let's dig down the rabbit hole further. Garmin has a TSOd charger. If I get one, reverse engineer it, and build my own "Gorwim" chargers to exactly the same specs, is it now a standard part and could be sold without TSO?

I like to argue, lol. I don't care if I'm right or wrong, I just like to know why. Most people, when you ask them things, say essentially "because I say so". That's never been good enough for me. I need to update my location. I'm actually in Glendale next door now. I keep my plane at DVT.

The 1st image is not legal. The second image would be legal in a certified aircraft. I could run an inverter off my cigarette lighter, plug in a powestrip, and run all sorts of stuff (nevermind the breaker might pop). That mess is totally legal. Why?

AC 20-154 seems to disagree with that interpretation. In the past the FAA has applied section 21.303(b)(4) to parts that have specifications when a determination of physical conformity to a design could be made. This application largely excluded classes of parts in which the parts are conformed not on the basis of their physical configuration but by meeting the specified performance criteria. Much of the componentry used in electronic devices are manufactured under standard industry practices, often to published specifications developed by standards organizations such as the SAE, the American Electronics Association, Semitec, Joint Electron Device Engineering Council, and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Such standards developed by these bodies is overseen by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the IEEE Standards Committee, as well as the electrical and electronics industry, at large, which depends upon characteristic design standards for consistency in operation and performance. The FAA notified the public in the Federal Register on March 5, 1997 (62 FR 9923) that the interpretation of an acceptable U.S. Government- or industry-accepted specification may include specifications that may be limited to detailed performance criteria, complete testing procedures, and uniform marking criteria. These parts are best exemplified by discrete electrical and electronic parts, which include resistors, capacitors, diodes, transistors, and nonprogrammable integrated circuits (e.g., amplifiers, bridges, switches, gates, etc.). Conversely, large scale, application-specific, or programmable integrated circuits; hybrids, gate arrays, memories, CPUs, or other programmable logic devices would not be considered standard parts and are not discrete.

This isn't about wanting to do it (I already bought a couple guardian avionics chargers - which, btw, aren't TSOd or PMA either lol) but about why. So far, no one has posted any regulation that says all parts used on an aircraft have to be TSO, PMA, or on a type certificate. That's what this conversation is about

See, this is the kind of discussion I was looking for. I'm not looking to be "right". I just want to know the why. In my opinion, it's a "standard part", as defined here :https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/safety/programs/sups/standard_parts/media/62fr9923.txt I've always been one to not just follow the leader. I want to know the "why's". as a kid, at church, all the Sunday School teachers called me "desert island kid". Because I always wanted to know, if you were born on a desert island, your parents died, and you were never exposed to the Bible - would you go to heaven or hell when you died. And why.

So you're saying TSO and PMA is not required. Which is what I'm saying. I just want to know where the line is. Is there somewhere, codified, that everything in an airplane has to be TSO or PMA; or is just institutional "knowledge" like shock cooling.

Of course. I'm not asking if I can do it myself. I'm just asking where is the "rule" that a USB power port (or even a cigarette lighter for that matter) be TSO or PMA

Sure. Show me the PMA or TSO for a GE 4509 landing light. Or the PMA for the leather on your seats.

Why would it need a 337? It doesn't seem to be a major modification. (1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations.”

Except that's not true at all.