Any legal reason a USB charger has to be certified?

[cliffy]

You can solve you dilemma real easy-  Just call your local FSDO and ask for someone in maintenance and tell him what you want to do.

When you do, come back here and tell us all what he said. We're all ears. 

All the back and forth is nothing but gum flapping. CALL and get the answer,  

End of dilemma!!!!!!!!!!  

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, M20Doc said:

It’s just another version of an auxiliary power socket(cigar lighter). If properly installed and connected to the airplane electrical system through an appropriate fuse or circuit breaker I don’t see an issue.

Clarence

The issue is if the non aviation approved 'auxiliary USB power socket' introduces EMI/RFI into the nav/comm system.  The device in the OPs post may, or may not, cause an interference issue.

Practically speaking, I'd rather NOT buy an unknown part, pay an A&P to install and complete whatever paperwork he deems required, and THEN find out the device does, in fact, cause interference.

Much easier to buy a USB adaptor that plugs into the existing cigar lighter socket.  No A&P or approval required.  If there's an interference issue, just plug in another brand. Rinse and repeat as required; the things are low cost.

I was lucky.  The PO of my plane had already found one that plugged in and doesn't cause interference

[cliffy]

Here is an older AOPA article that I have highlighted several paragraphs for your perusal-

 

All aircraft parts must carry some type of verifiable FAA approval.

One of the concepts that's new to first-time owners is the concept of FAA-approved parts. No other vehicle we operate has such a requirement. If our car develops a problem, we can get the parts we need at the dealer or local auto parts store. Or we can adapt another part, make our own, or choose not to take care of the problem.

In aviation, however, safety and reliability are such overriding concerns that all aircraft parts must carry some type of verifiable FAA approval, and usually we must keep the approval documentation for all the parts currently installed on the airplane in the aircraft maintenance records. Even "non-functioning" parts, such as upholstery and carpeting, require approval for fire resistance before we can install them legally in an aircraft.

Unapproved parts are a clear and present danger in aviation. They are attractive to some buyers because they cost less, or are available when an approved part may not be. However, these parts have not been manufactured or tested according to minimum FAA standards. That means they may not perform as well or as long as the same FAA-approved part and that should be a serious safety concern for everyone.

Some sources of unapproved parts are the military, which often sells parts as surplus; parts being illegally "recycled" after they have reached or exceeded their approved life limits; parts intentionally made by unapproved manufacturers and sold to unsuspecting buyers; and auto parts and non-aviation quality hardware installed on aircraft.

Shops that specialize in vintage and antique aircraft commonly find auto parts and hardware installed on aircraft. Even if the item functions adequately, it's not legal and the aircraft cannot be approved for return to service after an annual inspection.

When an aircraft technician installs a part on an FAA-certified product, he or she must meet five standards, or requirements. One, the part must have FAA approval and that approval must be documented and kept in the aircraft maintenance records. Two, the part must be the proper part for that installation. Three, the part must be installed correctly. Four, the part must be function-tested to ensure that it works properly. And five, the maintenance records must be completed, showing the work accomplished, the function test performed, and that a properly certificated person or facility approved the work for return to service. The FAA parts approval process is one of the prime contributors to both the high level of safety and the high cost of aviation.

The FAA has several ways that a part may receive approval for installation on an aircraft. It may be approved by the original manufacturer; it may be approved under a Parts Manufacturers Approval (PMA) by an after-market manufacturer; it may be approved as part of an Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) by an after-market manufacturer; it may be approved by meeting the requirements of a Technical Standard Order (TSO) by an after-market manufacturer; it may be approved by an FAA Field Approval (FAA Form 337); or it may have a "blanket" approval by virtue of meeting some accepted industry standard, such as a "MIL spec" or MS.

The FAA approves parts installed by the original manufacturer when it builds the aircraft under the manufacturer's Type and/or Production Certificate, and these parts are eligible for both original and replacement installation. When we order a replacement part from the original manufacturer, it comes with certification documentation that verifies it's FAA-approved. The documentation might also include a part number and, sometimes, a serial number.

Hence the approval of the of the Balkamp lighter It comes under the original TC

An after-market parts manufacturer can apply to the FAA for a PMA to manufacture and sell parts for FAA-certificated products. To apply for a PMA, the manufacturer must tell the FAA specifically on what products the part is to be installed. It must give the FAA the name and address of the facility that will build the parts, and the drawings and specifications that show the part's configuration, dimensions, materials, the tests that will define its structural strength, and test reports and computations necessary to show that the part meets FAA regulations. Once the FAA grants a PMA, the part must carry a number and possibly a serial number, as well as the proper documentation to verify that it's FAA-approved under a PMA and is legal to be installed on the appropriate product.

Anything manufactured and offered for sale to be installed on a certified airplane by a 3rd party has to have a PMA (or other approval basis, TSO, STC, etc) This shows that the part and the manufacturer have been looked at and approved by the FAA 

Generally, a PMA part replaces a factory original. To upgrade or enhance an airplane with products and kits not available from the original manufacturer or PMA source, such as a larger engine, floats, skis, and the like, we need to seek an after-market firm that has earned an STC approval. An STC alters the aircraft's original type certificate and is therefore a major alteration to the aircraft.

A person wishing to apply for an STC must show the FAA that the altered product meets all applicable airworthiness requirements. If the aircraft was originally certificated under FAR Part 23, it must continue to meet all of the requirements of Part 23 after the STC is installed.

Parts included in the STC will be FAA-approved as part of that STC and can be used under that approval only. If the parts manufacturer wants the part to be approved for use other than with the STC, it must receive a PMA for the part.

Some aeronautical products are approved under a TSO. Common TSO parts include seat belts, avionics, and emergency locator transmitters (ELTs). A TSO is a minimum set of FAA performance standards for a product, and to earn it a manufacturer builds its product to meet them and verifies this by testing the product. The TSO means the part itself is FAA approved, but it implies no FAA approval for installing the part on any specific aircraft. Installing a TSO'd part in a specific process is done under another process.

A part or component may be approved under an FAA Field Approval (FAA Form 337). I own a 1946 Taylorcraft with wood wing spars. When rebuilding the aircraft I found that the old spars didn't meet my standards, so I made new spars and submitted the proper documentation to the FAA for approval to install them. The FAA gave the spars a field approval on a Form 337, which is part of the aircraft's permanent records, along with a logbook entry for the installation. This process can be used for a wide variety of parts and is especially useful on older aircraft where replacement parts are no longer available.

A wide variety of parts generally classified as hardware are approved by what the FAA refers to as "established industry or U.S. specifications." Most items of aircraft hardware are identified by their specification number or trade name. Threaded fasteners and rivets are usually identified by AN (Air Force-Navy), NAS (National Aircraft Standard), or MS (Military Standard, or MIL spec) numbers.

This is where our "STANDARD PARTS" come in. As mentioned above a GE 4509 light bulb is made to an industry standard design (size, shape, incandescent filament , watt draw, everything about it is spelled out in an industry standard publication (SAE is a typical publication). There is no "industry standard DESIGN" for any USB socket! Nothing spells out what plastic to use or what wire size or what the contacts are to be made out of. THAT is what and industry standard does.  AN bolts. MS fasteners or AN orings all have an industry standard to match, Space qualified components are approved. 

Unapproved parts are a serious safety concern, and they present a problem that's difficult to resolve. I've attended unapproved parts programs where parts were displayed that appear to be acceptable in every way - but are really bogus. It's extremely difficult, if not impossible, for an aircraft technician to identify an expertly manufactured, marked, and documented bogus part. One partial solution is to purchase parts only from reputable sources.

The FAA is currently considering requiring FAA certification for parts suppliers. This would increase the cost of parts somewhat, but it would also increase the level of safety by making it more difficult for unapproved parts to make their way into the system. The requirement for FAA approval of aircraft parts and the system to accomplish that does increase the cost of flying, but it increases the safety of flying even more.

 

[EricJ]

50 minutes ago, cliffy said:

... There is no "industry standard DESIGN" for any USB socket! Nothing spells out what plastic to use or what wire size or what the contacts are to be made out of. THAT is what and industry standard does. ...

USB is absolutely an industry standard.    Like most standards, there is a standards body and a repository for the documentation.   You can find it here:

https://www.usb.org/documents

I think that article has some misconceptions about what a standard is and misses the point.

 - signed, an EE who spent a lot of his career as a voting member of a number of standards working groups, including IEEE 802.16, IEEE 802.11 (WiFi), and 3GPP LTE (Cell phones).

Edited March 5, 2020 by EricJ

[ragedracer1977]

1 hour ago, cliffy said:

You can solve you dilemma real easy-  Just call your local FSDO and ask for someone in maintenance and tell him what you want to do.

When you do, come back here and tell us all what he said. We're all ears. 

All the back and forth is nothing but gum flapping. CALL and get the answer,  

End of dilemma!!!!!!!!!!  

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

[cliffy]

The standard has to include exactly how to make every part of the unit not just what shape it has to be. 

What plastic, what contact material, what thickness of the contacts, insulator material

discreet electrical parts like diodes are made to that kind of industry standard. 

Now maybe one could get away calling it a "standard part" but it would be interesting to again call the FSDO and see what they have to say about it. 

[MikeOH]

14 minutes ago, EricJ said:

USB is absolutely an industry standard.    Like most standards, there is a standards body and a repository for the documentation.   You can find it here:

https://www.usb.org/documents

I think that article has some misconceptions about what a standard is and misses the point.

 - signed, an EE who spent a lot of his career as a voting member of a number of standards working groups, including IEEE 802.16, IEEE 802.11 (WiFi), and 3GPP LTE (Cell phones).

Which one of the multitude of specifications you linked is the one that defines what is required for a USB adaptor to meet aviation EMI/RFI requirements?

[ragedracer1977]

4 minutes ago, cliffy said:

The standard has to include exactly how to make every part of the unit not just what shape it has to be. 

What plastic, what contact material, what thickness of the contacts, insulator material

discreet electrical parts like diodes are made to that kind of industry standard. 

Now maybe one could get away calling it a "standard part" but it would be interesting to again call the FSDO and see what they have to say about it. 

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.

Edited March 5, 2020 by ragedracer1977

[CharlesHuddleston]

Will anyone know but you?

Will it affect your future annual inspections?

Would it cause some discrepancies if you go to re-sell?

Is the FAA going to come inspect your panel and ground you because you didn't install a "certified" part?

Could it lead to other potential problems as mentioned above? (radio interference, current issues, fire risk)

I think there are a lot of things that we do to our aircraft that often times would fall into that 'gray area'. For one thing, I prefer to be involved in the work on my airplane, because it gives me a better understanding of the plane and how/why it works or doesn't work. I would love to be able to install my own radios, etc, but at the same time do know my own personal limits. I guess the bottom line is "just because you could, doesn't mean you always should."

 

However, if one does get installed, please do let us all know how it goes. I have eyed similar pieces of equipment as well!!!

[MikeOH]

4 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

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

What are you trying to accomplish here?

Cliffy has provided a rather thorough explanation of how parts on an aircraft are determined to be acceptable.  You appear to be playing semantic games with 'proof' that will be acceptable to you.  I'll make it easy: you are NOT going to find any single reg that directly states, "Thou shall NOT use any item on an aircraft that is not TSO, PMA, or STC."

Happy?

[ragedracer1977]

9 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

What are you trying to accomplish here?

Cliffy has provided a rather thorough explanation of how parts on an aircraft are determined to be acceptable.  You appear to be playing semantic games with 'proof' that will be acceptable to you.  I'll make it easy: you are NOT going to find any single reg that directly states, "Thou shall NOT use any item on an aircraft that is not TSO, PMA, or STC."

Happy?

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? 

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by ragedracer1977

[EricJ]

Just now, MikeOH said:

Which one of the multitude of specifications you linked is the one that defines what is required for a USB adaptor to meet aviation EMI/RFI requirements?

What are aviation EMI/RFI requirements?    I earlier quoted AC 20-62 which says that electronic components "do not adversely affect the performance of the equipment or article into or onto which they are installed", and pretty much anything sold has to meet FCC Part 15 for unintentional radiation (which, we've recently discovered, some very expensive TSO'd panel equipment doesn't meet).   Can you cite a spec for "aviation EMI/RFI requirements"?   

 

4 minutes ago, cliffy said:

The standard has to include exactly how to make every part of the unit not just what shape it has to be. 

What plastic, what contact material, what thickness of the contacts, insulator material

discreet electrical parts like diodes are made to that kind of industry standard. 

Now maybe one could get away calling it a "standard part" but it would be interesting to again call the FSDO and see what they have to say about it. 

Almost no standards do that.   Standards typically define a function and characteristics, and it is up to the implementer to decide how to meet the requirements.  Very often a test/verification body exists to confirm that a particular item meets the standard, but not always.   e.g., a bolt might have to have certain tensile strength and corrosion resistance.   A typical standard won't say how to do that or what material/alloy/etc., to use, because that stifles competition and innovation.   It is up to the standard definition to completely capture the actual requirements and characteristics, but how those characteristics are met are up to the implementer/manufacturer.   e.g., the specs for most "light bulbs" don't say that they have to be incandescent or how they're implemented, but, for example, how much light of what color should be emitted and what the electrical interface needs to look like.   Many lighting standards originally written for incandescent bulbs are met and exceeded by LEDs, which is an example of a new technology coming to market that improves things.   If the standard had specified "put a tungsten filament here and coil it this many times and string it this way", you'd have a lot of identical bulbs and no chance to improve the technology.   The vast majority of standards are written explicitly to avoid that trap by only capturing the minimum requirements to meet the task that needs to be done, and leaving the door open for smaller/faster/cheaper/better ways to meet the requirements.

In aviation TSOs are essentially standard specifications for particular equipment or functions.   We already know that lots of different manufacturers find all kinds of different ways to meet some of them, e.g., there is a TSO that describes what a transponder needs to do, and there are lots of different implementations of transponders.

Including "exactly how to make every part" is usually avoided by standards bodies.   That's the manufacturer's proprietary information.

[Yetti]

4 hours ago, Cruiser said:

Look in your logbook. On the first page is an entry that shows your plane by serial number to be a certified aircraft approved by the FAA.

Per FAA regulation, the aircraft must be maintained in the exact same certified status as it was when  first approved. This is done by minor or major alteration and annual inspections. 

The material you put in the aircraft must be approved by the FAA for aircraft use. Everything included screws, nuts and bolts are aircraft quality by manufacture. (PMA,  TSO)

 

 

Please provide a PMA for GE landing light installed in the Mooney

[cliffy]

19 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

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.

They are disusing individual electronic components (resistors, diodes, etc)  We are going around in circles here again as we have many times over the years on the same subject. You are trying to pars words for a wanted outcome. Many here have been doing this aviation stuff for a long time (55 years in my case as an MEATP and a licensed A&P) and have a generally good idea of what can be done legally. 

If you don't believe me or others here again- JUST CALL THE FSDO and come back here an tell us what they said. I'll go along with whatever they say. 

BTW if you are in Peoria what airport do you keep your C at?   Mine is up here at KPGA. Lake Powell. 

[ragedracer1977]

Just now, cliffy said:

 

BTW if you are in Peoria what airport do you keep your C at?   Mine is up here at KPGA. Lake Powell. 

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.  

[carusoam]

Summary...

Objective: Add a USB socket to the instrument panel...

Challenges and issues...

1) Existing Aviation devices like TrueBlue are deemed to be too expensive...

2) Adding a clock or Audio panel to get a USB socket is even more expensive, or goofy depending on if you have one already...

3) There are standards that can apply... PMA, TSO, and whether the plane was built with one or not... touch to have a USB originally installed in the 60s...

4) Real challenges... heat, over heating, and fire... well... make sure the socket and the load at least match, from the user perspective...

5) Really real challenges... electrical noise and emitted noise... can block nav signals from being received... and cause some annoying or funny noises in the audio panel...   this is really important when flying in IMC...  This is known as the Narco radio effect... Narco radios were known to produce so much noise, when tuned to certain stations... they would block GPS signals around the plane... testing becomes a challenge.  Every station....

6) Mechanics install things properly... they may need to do some research, which may include a call to the FSDO...

7) Find the experience of the Cirrus Jet fire... for an example of how even factory installed electronics are challenged...
 

 

Thanks to Cliffy, Eric, Doc, Mike, S Moose (below) and everyone that added something to the list...

A similar question comes up, or will come up, every time a new electrical product goes mainstream...

Great question and answers, MS!

Best regards,

-a-

Brice/ @ragedracer1977, have you seen this one...? From mid continent...  https://www.chiefaircraft.com/mdct-9017947.html?gclid=Cj0KCQiAwP3yBRCkARIsAABGiPrdWPS1Iy5pIKQQI6vcUaFFi2bTnVNpzgIMyA_BFOU52lfUzX1PcmYaAkSfEALw_wcB

[cliffy]

Below is a cut directly from the FAA website on electronic parts=

A part manufactured in complete compliance with an established industry or U.S. Government specification which includes design, manufacturing, test and acceptance criteria, and uniform identification requirements; or for a type of part which the Administrator has found demonstrates conformity based solely on meeting performance criteria, is in complete compliance with an established industry or U.S. Government specification which contains performance criteria, test and acceptance criteria, and uniform identification requirements. The specification must include all information necessary to produce and conform the part and be published so that any party may manufacture the part. Examples include, but are not limited to, National Aerospace Standard (NAS), Army-Navy Aeronautical Standard (AN), Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), SAE Sematec, Joint Electron Device Engineering Council, Joint Electron Tube Engineering Council, and American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

This definition incorporates two categories of standard part criteria. Initially, the FAA recognized as “standard” those parts that met published specifications that included information clearly establishing design, materials, manufacture, and uniform identification requirements. The FAA issued a subsequent interpretation of standard part that provided for a class of parts conforming to a standard not based on their physical configuration but on their meeting a specified performance criterion. The FAA stated this second category of standard parts is best exemplified by discrete electrical and electronic parts. See 62 Fed. Reg. 9,923 (1997). The FAA must make a specific finding of applicability to a class of parts before the “performance only” criterion can be used.

So, in the above paragraph a standard part has to be made according to and tested to a specific design criteria set up by a nationally recognized authority. so that exact duplicates can be made by anyone.

The last sentence actually points to (as one example) an LED light bulb. The LED is not made to exactly duplicate the incandescent  light bulb that it wants to replace only its performance matches the called for light bulb THEREFORE it must have a separate FAA approval to be used. 

[cliffy]

36 minutes ago, Yetti said:

Please provide a PMA for GE landing light installed in the Mooney

Yetti - As has been said many times over the years right here   Aviation light bulbs come under "STANDARD PARTS"  as there is an SAE paper that describe exactly how to make any aviation light bulb. NO PMA is required for light bulbs just like no PMA is required for AN bolts because they are made to a national standard so anyone can make an exact duplicate of the article. 

This brings us back to EricJs above comment on LED light bulbs, There is NO  STANDARD ON HOW TO MAKE ANY PARTICULAR LED LIGHT BULB. I don't care if it is form, fit and function or not, it is not made to any national standard therefore it does not fall under the STANDARD PARTS criteria for installation. 

39 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

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? 

Because it is NOT installed permanently in the airplane

Edited March 5, 2020 by cliffy

[MikeOH]

31 minutes ago, ragedracer1977 said:

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? 

 

Ah, you just want to rant about how "unfair" the existing regulations are, and how illogical.  Hey, I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that they are what they are; they do NOT have to make sense to be enforceable.  If you are seriously asking someone to explain FAA reasoning,...well good luck with that.

I thought you wanted to know how to perform a legal install.

You can install what you want yourself and hope the IA at your next annual doesn't care...and any future buyer's pre-buy inspector.

You can pay a willing A&P to install and sign off whatever junk you can buy cheap off ebay.  That will be legal.

You can pay a willing A&P to install and sign off an approved USB. That would be legal.

You can buy a cheap USB cigar lighter USB and plug it in. That would be legal.

[cliffy]

Unfortunately I really don't like going into DVT. Just my thing. Just don't like the place. The restaurant is good however. 

[MikeOH]

37 minutes ago, EricJ said:

What are aviation EMI/RFI requirements?    I earlier quoted AC 20-62 which says that electronic components "do not adversely affect the performance of the equipment or article into or onto which they are installed", and pretty much anything sold has to meet FCC Part 15 for unintentional radiation (which, we've recently discovered, some very expensive TSO'd panel equipment doesn't meet).   Can you cite a spec for "aviation EMI/RFI requirements"?   

You got it! "Do NOT adversely affect the performance of the equipment or article into ...."

I am in no way convinced that meeting FCC Part 15 regs will assure that the item does not interfere with avionics.

But, to your point, I am not convinced that everything sold as TSO/aviation approved is guaranteed not to interfere...even though it should be!

[Shiny moose]

This is simple, just ask the person signing your annual inspections if what you want is good enough for them, if the answer is yes, your good to go until a IA change, or selling, then it could be an issue. Mechanics and IA's are able And required to make these types of decisions, even if 2 disagree , its their signature.  If I was your IA I would suggest no to installing a non certified panel mounted USB. Why?  A few problems I see are load needs, internal issues, radio/nav issues,  fire hazard, materials, does it burn up inflight and toxic smoke will pour out, these are all unknowns, that I feel are to high of a risk for an aircraft installation.  

my  IA .02

[EricJ]

2 minutes ago, cliffy said:

So, in the above paragraph a standard part has to be made according to and tested to a specific design criteria set up by a nationally recognized authority. so that exact duplicates can be made by anyone.

I think you still misunderstand standards.   The paragraph you quoted says that even for the first category parts "performance criteria, test and acceptance criteria, and uniform identification requirements. The specification must include all information necessary to produce and conform the part..."   So there are test and acceptance criteria against requirements, and the spec has to include enough detail so that somebody will know when they've met the requirements with a conforming part.   The "test and acceptance criteria" can be applied so that people know when the standard has been met.   This does NOT say that parts have to be exact duplicates of each other, just that they meet the "test and acceptance criteria".   

The second category is really just specifically stating that performance criteria are what meets the definition of "standard parts".   They do NOT have to be identical, they just need to conform to the standard so that the parts are interchangeable.   

There is a TSO for safety belts in aircraft.   There are many types of belts of different materials, manufacture, color, stitching, attachment type, etc., etc.   They aren't even close to identical, but they all meet the requirements of the TSO if they have the TSO mark on them.

Another example of the "uniform identification requirements" in a standard is the licensing of a Logo to show compliance.   WiFi is a trademarked symbol that can only be used on equipment that has been verified by the WiFi Alliance as compliant to the standard (based on IEEE 802.11), and non-compliant equipment can be cited with a trademark violation if they use the logo.   The same is true with USB, https://www.usb.org/logo-license.   Many standards organizations use such a scheme and this meets the "uniform identification requirements" that indicates that an item meets the standard.  The "uniform identification requirement" is useful specifically because compliant items aren't all exact duplicates.
 

15 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

You got it! "Do NOT adversely affect the performance of the equipment or article into ...."

I am in no way convinced that meeting FCC Part 15 regs will assure that the item does not interfere with avionics.

But, to your point, I am not convinced that everything sold as TSO/aviation approved is guaranteed not to interfere...even though it should be!

I agree, there is no spec.   So, to your earlier query, "Which one of the multitude of specifications you linked is the one that defines what is required for a USB adaptor to meet aviation EMI/RFI requirements?", since there is no "aviation EMI/RFI" requirement, they are all compliant if they don't adversely affect the existing system.  

[Skates97]

Here we go a trolling...

I have a hangar neighbor a few hangars down with a beautiful RV that has lots of "non-certified" also not PMA/TSO's electronics/avionics in it. I have another friend around the corner with a Glasair (another pristine plane) with all kinds of "non-certified" also not PMA/TSO's electronics/avionics in it. Somehow the two of them manage to fly around without falling out of the sky or their radios quitting at the most inopportune moment causing a huge safety of flight issue. Yes, I know that my Mooney is not an experimental and thus requires certified or PMA/TSO parts in it per regulations and I knew that when I bought it. However, the argument that putting "non-certified" electronics in it can/will cause a safety of flight issue when there are experimentals flying around with those exact same electronics is disingenuous. Required by regulation? Sure. A safety factor? I have a hard time swallowing that when there are so many flying examples to the contrary.

I should check with my neighbors and see which usb power ports they have installed. My guess is probably something like one of these.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/easmartdualusb.php?clickkey=156696

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/usb-adapter.php?clickkey=156696

[Shiny moose]

7 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

Here we go a trolling...

I have a hangar neighbor a few hangars down with a beautiful RV that has lots of "non-certified" also not PMA/TSO's electronics/avionics in it. I have another friend around the corner with a Glasair (another pristine plane) with all kinds of "non-certified" also not PMA/TSO's electronics/avionics in it. Somehow the two of them manage to fly around without falling out of the sky or their radios quitting at the most inopportune moment causing a huge safety of flight issue. Yes, I know that my Mooney is not an experimental and thus requires certified or PMA/TSO parts in it per regulations and I knew that when I bought it. However, the argument that putting "non-certified" electronics in it can/will cause a safety of flight issue when there are experimentals flying around with those exact same electronics is disingenuous. Required by regulation? Sure. A safety factor? I have a hard time swallowing that when there are so many flying examples to the contrary.

I should check with my neighbors and see which usb power ports they have installed. My guess is probably something like one of these.

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/elpages/easmartdualusb.php?clickkey=156696

https://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/pspages/usb-adapter.php?clickkey=156696

Not picking a fight here but

They get to and you don't. Doing it anyway cause you think its good enough for them it must be good enough for me, getting an unsuspecting IA to sign an annual with installed unapproved parts, yes I agree would be disingenuous