Bi-annual Pitot Static Check

[PhantomPholly]

If this has been well covered, please provide the link. Searched on FARs and only found a thread about whether the aircraft builder (not me) could perform the check.

My avionics guy is concerned because my Dynon is not a certified piece of equipment, nor is my Chinese manufactured backup altimeter. He is also not sure of my altitude encoder, which doesn't seem to have a data plate on it.

What are the actual checks he needs to perform and the magic words he needs to write in my log to show that he has performed the checks necessary to allow IFR flight? And, to what authoritative source can I point him so that he doesn't feel he needs to "certify" my airplane?

Thanks,

Bill

 

[dynonsupport]

You might give an EAA technical counselor a call on this one for regulatory guidance. Off the top of my head, these are the basic FARs that pertain to IFR ops and the altimeter check in particular:

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-411-FAR.shtml

which then points you to:

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part43-E-APPX.shtml

 

[PhantomPholly]

You might give an EAA technical counselor a call on this one for regulatory guidance. Off the top of my head, these are the basic FARs that pertain to IFR ops and the altimeter check in particular:

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part91-411-FAR.shtml

which then points you to:

http://www.risingup.com/fars/info/part43-E-APPX.shtml

Thanks. I am also hoping for inspiring words to overcome the fear that most aviation workers seem to have when dealing with non-TSO equipment. I KNOW we don't need it; they DON'T know it and are afraid of getting their tickets nicked. Hearing it from me is not very authoritative...

 

[Ratman]

(edit, while finding the links I see Dynon beat me to it. Still, hope this helps.)

Is he concerned that the equipment isn't "certified" or is he confused as to what checks need to be done? If it's the paperwork I guess I understand but if he is confused as to what test and procedures to use I think I would find another avionics guy.

Here's a link to the FAR that concerns the requirement for the pitot/static check (with links to the appendixes below). I would think a statement that says your systems has been tested and complies with the applicable FARs would suffice.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...v8&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10.5.7.7&idno=14

§ 91.411   Altimeter system and altitude reporting equipment tests and inspections.
top
(a) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR unless—

(1) Within the preceding 24 calendar months, each static pressure system, each altimeter instrument, and each automatic pressure altitude reporting system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with appendices E and F of part 43 of this chapter;

(2) Except for the use of system drain and alternate static pressure valves, following any opening and closing of the static pressure system, that system has been tested and inspected and found to comply with paragraph (a), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter; and

(3) Following installation or maintenance on the automatic pressure altitude reporting system of the ATC transponder where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 of this chapter.

(b) The tests required by paragraph (a) of this section must be conducted by—

(1) The manufacturer of the airplane, or helicopter, on which the tests and inspections are to be performed;

(2) A certificated repair station properly equipped to perform those functions and holding—

(i) An instrument rating, Class I;

(ii) A limited instrument rating appropriate to the make and model of appliance to be tested;

(iii) A limited rating appropriate to the test to be performed;

(iv) An airframe rating appropriate to the airplane, or helicopter, to be tested; or

(3) A certificated mechanic with an airframe rating (static pressure system tests and inspections only).

(c) Altimeter and altitude reporting equipment approved under Technical Standard Orders are considered to be tested and inspected as of the date of their manufacture.

(d) No person may operate an airplane, or helicopter, in controlled airspace under IFR at an altitude above the maximum altitude at which all altimeters and the automatic altitude reporting system of that airplane, or helicopter, have been tested.

Appendix E to Part 43—Altimeter System Test and Inspection
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...:1.0.1.3.21&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.14.55

Appendix F to Part 43—ATC Transponder Tests and Inspections
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/tex...:1.0.1.3.21&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.21.0.363.14.56

 

[PhantomPholly]

Thanks all - the problem turned out to be twofold.

One, the avionics person in question had never worked on an experimental plane and, frankly, didn't want to start.  I have that resolved, having found a shop more interested in customers.

The second:  Apparently, although it is nowhere in the regs, there is hard pressure coming from the FAA that the primary altimeter be TSO.  Now, the "primary" could be on the right side with an EFIS on the left.  In the case of the avionics group I am now working with, their "solution" is to perform the tests as applied to the "primary" altimeter (and in this case ignore the EFIS).

In other words, it is closer to a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" approach.

I know Dynon is working towards certification which may make this moot, but this is just another of those ways our government tends to make up "unwritten rules" to make our lives more difficult.  Clearly the regs for the aircraft requirements do not specify TSO; however, we all also need to be sensitive to the fact that our favorite Avionics shop could conceivably lose their ticket and their lively hood in the event that some FAA person makes an "unfair/unjustified" spot-ruling.

Be sensitive to your Avionics folks, and be a partner not a pain...

 

[dynonsupport]

Glad to hear you got it resolved. Just a note that we don't currently have any certification program underway for any of our products - we're completely saturated just getting the next gen system into the experimental /LSA markets!