Re: Microair and others

ranger440c5 · Post by **ranger440c5** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:55 am

'While on the subject of the Microair radios I have a question
regarding these and similar items. For those out there with
regulation prowess and a penchant for proper paperwork.....
Can someone explain how the TSO rating on these appliances impacts
installation? EXACTLY what this means as far as can it be legally
installed in normal catagory aircraft? How is this getting done? I
understand the TSO is there to assure the item meets certain criteria
for the given appliance and as such if an item is not TSO'd (Microair
products are not) then is it legal for installation in a normal
standard aircraft? Smaller items such as gages that are not TSO'd are
usually intended for experimental applications. It appears to me that
this is a quasi problem, a real gray area that could go either way
depending on the FSDO. I get the feeling that our FSDO leans toward
the direction of NO, if it is not TSO'd then the only way it's going
in the plane is by field approval. I have seen lots of these non
TSO'd items in planes and I wonder if anyone has actually processed
this correctly. Did they simply throw it in there and fill out a
337? It goes through the FSDO w/o any scrutiny? I have asked many
IA's about this and get responses from shoulder shrug beats me to I
dunno. An item to relate to is seatbelts. I don't think there is an
IA in the world that would install or sign off an airplane (non-
experimental) with out TSO'd belts. They all seem to know about this
one, but what about the avionics? I have avoided these non-TSO'd
products to bypass any of the above concerns as it appeared to be the
only surefire way to stay clear of unforseen pitfalls. If this matter
were definitively put to rest, it would certainly open up some
alternative sources.
How about it? EXACTLY how does this work?'

Jamie S. Treat · Post by **Jamie S. Treat** » Wed Sep 15, 2004 7:02 pm

'All,

As an IA I do it this way.

If it has an TSO or FAA/PMA then it can go legally on the aircraft. It may
or may not require a FAA based on a STC. At a minium it will require
logbook, W&B, and equiplist update.

If it is not an TSO or FAA/PMA approved item, it will require at the minium.
FAA 337, field approval, with continuation of airworthness to be completed,
any and all data the FAA may need to accompany the FAA 337 for block 3
endorsement.

Take for instance the installation of a Non FAA/PMA approved nor TSOd engine
preoiler. I am doing three of them right now. I will submitt a unsigned FAA
337 completed with all the data including photos, tech data, and drawings to
the FAA for block 3 approval. If approved I will then purchase hardware and
install. I as the IA will return to service after install.

Point is, you must work with your FAA office and work out the details prior
to purchase and install. Providing them the correct data in a logical sense
has never let me down in 25 years.

Please feel free to call me for assistance. Advice is free.

Jamie S. Treat A&P/IA
Aircraft Restoration & Repair
24201 David C. Johnson Loop
Kelly Airpark
Elbert, CO 80106
HM/Shop 303-648-0130

----- Original Message -----
From: "ranger440c5"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:55 AM
Subject: [fairchildclub] Microair and others

>
> While on the subject of the Microair radios I have a question
> regarding these and similar items. For those out there with
> regulation prowess and a penchant for proper paperwork.....
> Can someone explain how the TSO rating on these appliances impacts
> installation? EXACTLY what this means as far as can it be legally
> installed in normal catagory aircraft? How is this getting done? I
> understand the TSO is there to assure the item meets certain criteria
> for the given appliance and as such if an item is not TSO'd (Microair
> products are not) then is it legal for installation in a normal
> standard aircraft? Smaller items such as gages that are not TSO'd are
> usually intended for experimental applications. It appears to me that
> this is a quasi problem, a real gray area that could go either way
> depending on the FSDO. I get the feeling that our FSDO leans toward
> the direction of NO, if it is not TSO'd then the only way it's going
> in the plane is by field approval. I have seen lots of these non
> TSO'd items in planes and I wonder if anyone has actually processed
> this correctly. Did they simply throw it in there and fill out a
> 337? It goes through the FSDO w/o any scrutiny? I have asked many
> IA's about this and get responses from shoulder shrug beats me to I
> dunno. An item to relate to is seatbelts. I don't think there is an
> IA in the world that would install or sign off an airplane (non-
> experimental) with out TSO'd belts. They all seem to know about this
> one, but what about the avionics? I have avoided these non-TSO'd
> products to bypass any of the above concerns as it appeared to be the
> only surefire way to stay clear of unforseen pitfalls. If this matter
> were definitively put to rest, it would certainly open up some
> alternative sources.
> How about it? EXACTLY how does this work?
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

'

ranger440c5 · Post by **ranger440c5** » Thu Sep 16, 2004 10:48 am

'Thanks for the response.
So to install a Microair you need a "field approval". The proceedure
you described for this is EXACTLY how to handle such operations. I
have run this route on many blk 3 approvals and it works well. Well
done.
The question lies in it's necessity. I have received a response from
a member stating that pt91 operations require no TSO. Welllllll, yes
and no. The ELT has to be TSO-C91a and this is in pt 91 ops. So pt 91
does require TSO'd equipment. I think the answer to this is a little
between the lines. Though not clearly stated, we must equate
that "approved articles" (ref pt 21) means it meets the applicable
TSO for that article. In other words, to be "previously approved by
the agency" it meets a TSO? Therefore TSO'd. If installing an article
in a normal catagory aircraft, if not supplied by the aircraft
manufacturer, then must be previously approved(TSO) by the Agency
(FAA). Based on this I am inclined to agree with you Jaime(and our
local FSDO).
The jist is this, for owners who want to have an item installed, the
lesscostly non-TSO item may cost more when installed and paperwork is
processed and there is a downtime factor while awaiting possible
delays in the approval process. Remember what Jaime stated fill out a
337, acquire supporting data, apply for approval, THEN order
hardware, install, and lastly file said paperwork.
So how many of the Microair owners out there have a 337 with blk 3
signed and dated BEFORE the IA signed and dated blk7?

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie S. Treat"
wrote:

> All,
>
> As an IA I do it this way.
>
> If it has an TSO or FAA/PMA then it can go legally on the aircraft.

It may

> or may not require a FAA based on a STC. At a minium it will

require

> logbook, W&B, and equiplist update.
>
> If it is not an TSO or FAA/PMA approved item, it will require at

the minium.

> FAA 337, field approval, with continuation of airworthness to be

completed,

> any and all data the FAA may need to accompany the FAA 337 for

block 3

> endorsement.
>
> Take for instance the installation of a Non FAA/PMA approved nor

TSOd engine

> preoiler. I am doing three of them right now. I will submitt a

unsigned FAA

> 337 completed with all the data including photos, tech data, and

drawings to

> the FAA for block 3 approval. If approved I will then purchase

hardware and

> install. I as the IA will return to service after install.
>
> Point is, you must work with your FAA office and work out the

details prior

> to purchase and install. Providing them the correct data in a

logical sense

> has never let me down in 25 years.
>
> Please feel free to call me for assistance. Advice is free.
>
> Jamie S. Treat A&P/IA
> Aircraft Restoration & Repair
> 24201 David C. Johnson Loop
> Kelly Airpark
> Elbert, CO 80106
> HM/Shop 303-648-0130
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ranger440c5"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:55 AM
> Subject: [fairchildclub] Microair and others
>
>
> >
> > While on the subject of the Microair radios I have a question
> > regarding these and similar items. For those out there with
> > regulation prowess and a penchant for proper paperwork.....
> > Can someone explain how the TSO rating on these appliances impacts
> > installation? EXACTLY what this means as far as can it be legally
> > installed in normal catagory aircraft? How is this getting done? I
> > understand the TSO is there to assure the item meets certain

criteria

> > for the given appliance and as such if an item is not TSO'd

(Microair

> > products are not) then is it legal for installation in a normal
> > standard aircraft? Smaller items such as gages that are not TSO'd

are

> > usually intended for experimental applications. It appears to me

that

> > this is a quasi problem, a real gray area that could go either way
> > depending on the FSDO. I get the feeling that our FSDO leans

toward

> > the direction of NO, if it is not TSO'd then the only way it's

going

> > in the plane is by field approval. I have seen lots of these non
> > TSO'd items in planes and I wonder if anyone has actually

processed

> > this correctly. Did they simply throw it in there and fill out a
> > 337? It goes through the FSDO w/o any scrutiny? I have asked many
> > IA's about this and get responses from shoulder shrug beats me to

I

> > dunno. An item to relate to is seatbelts. I don't think there is

an

> > IA in the world that would install or sign off an airplane (non-
> > experimental) with out TSO'd belts. They all seem to know about

this

> > one, but what about the avionics? I have avoided these non-TSO'd
> > products to bypass any of the above concerns as it appeared to be

the

> > only surefire way to stay clear of unforseen pitfalls. If this

matter

> > were definitively put to rest, it would certainly open up some
> > alternative sources.
> > How about it? EXACTLY how does this work?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

'

rangerrobertmn · Post by **rangerrobertmn** » Fri Sep 17, 2004 2:20 pm

'Hello Ranger440c5,

I have a Microair Electronics tranciever installed in my Fairchild
24. I have a 337 on which Block #3 is signed and dated 4/10/2000,
and Block #7 is signed and dated 4-21-00.

Bob Waldron
1939 Fairchild 24 K
Stillwater, MN

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "ranger440c5"
wrote:

> Thanks for the response.
> So to install a Microair you need a "field approval". The

proceedure

> you described for this is EXACTLY how to handle such operations. I
> have run this route on many blk 3 approvals and it works well.

Well

> done.
> The question lies in it's necessity. I have received a response

from

> a member stating that pt91 operations require no TSO. Welllllll,

yes

> and no. The ELT has to be TSO-C91a and this is in pt 91 ops. So pt

91

> does require TSO'd equipment. I think the answer to this is a

little

> between the lines. Though not clearly stated, we must equate
> that "approved articles" (ref pt 21) means it meets the applicable
> TSO for that article. In other words, to be "previously approved

by

> the agency" it meets a TSO? Therefore TSO'd. If installing an

article

> in a normal catagory aircraft, if not supplied by the aircraft
> manufacturer, then must be previously approved(TSO) by the Agency
> (FAA). Based on this I am inclined to agree with you Jaime(and our
> local FSDO).
> The jist is this, for owners who want to have an item installed,

the

> lesscostly non-TSO item may cost more when installed and paperwork

is

> processed and there is a downtime factor while awaiting possible
> delays in the approval process. Remember what Jaime stated fill

out a

> 337, acquire supporting data, apply for approval, THEN order
> hardware, install, and lastly file said paperwork.
> So how many of the Microair owners out there have a 337 with blk

3

> signed and dated BEFORE the IA signed and dated blk7?
>
>
>
> --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie S. Treat"
> wrote:
> > All,
> >
> > As an IA I do it this way.
> >
> > If it has an TSO or FAA/PMA then it can go legally on the

aircraft.

> It may
> > or may not require a FAA based on a STC. At a minium it will
> require
> > logbook, W&B, and equiplist update.
> >
> > If it is not an TSO or FAA/PMA approved item, it will require at
> the minium.
> > FAA 337, field approval, with continuation of airworthness to be
> completed,
> > any and all data the FAA may need to accompany the FAA 337 for
> block 3
> > endorsement.
> >
> > Take for instance the installation of a Non FAA/PMA approved nor
> TSOd engine
> > preoiler. I am doing three of them right now. I will submitt a
> unsigned FAA
> > 337 completed with all the data including photos, tech data, and
> drawings to
> > the FAA for block 3 approval. If approved I will then purchase
> hardware and
> > install. I as the IA will return to service after install.
> >
> > Point is, you must work with your FAA office and work out the
> details prior
> > to purchase and install. Providing them the correct data in a
> logical sense
> > has never let me down in 25 years.
> >
> > Please feel free to call me for assistance. Advice is free.
> >
> > Jamie S. Treat A&P/IA
> > Aircraft Restoration & Repair
> > 24201 David C. Johnson Loop
> > Kelly Airpark
> > Elbert, CO 80106
> > HM/Shop 303-648-0130
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "ranger440c5"
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:55 AM
> > Subject: [fairchildclub] Microair and others
> >
> >
> > >
> > > While on the subject of the Microair radios I have a question
> > > regarding these and similar items. For those out there with
> > > regulation prowess and a penchant for proper paperwork.....
> > > Can someone explain how the TSO rating on these appliances

impacts

> > > installation? EXACTLY what this means as far as can it be

legally

> > > installed in normal catagory aircraft? How is this getting

done? I

> > > understand the TSO is there to assure the item meets certain
> criteria
> > > for the given appliance and as such if an item is not TSO'd
> (Microair
> > > products are not) then is it legal for installation in a normal
> > > standard aircraft? Smaller items such as gages that are not

TSO'd

> are
> > > usually intended for experimental applications. It appears to

me

> that
> > > this is a quasi problem, a real gray area that could go either

way

> > > depending on the FSDO. I get the feeling that our FSDO leans
> toward
> > > the direction of NO, if it is not TSO'd then the only way it's
> going
> > > in the plane is by field approval. I have seen lots of these

non

> > > TSO'd items in planes and I wonder if anyone has actually
> processed
> > > this correctly. Did they simply throw it in there and fill

out a

> > > 337? It goes through the FSDO w/o any scrutiny? I have asked

many

> > > IA's about this and get responses from shoulder shrug beats me

to

> I
> > > dunno. An item to relate to is seatbelts. I don't think there

is

> an
> > > IA in the world that would install or sign off an airplane

(non-

> > > experimental) with out TSO'd belts. They all seem to know

about

> this
> > > one, but what about the avionics? I have avoided these non-

TSO'd

> > > products to bypass any of the above concerns as it appeared to

be

> the
> > > only surefire way to stay clear of unforseen pitfalls. If this
> matter
> > > were definitively put to rest, it would certainly open up some
> > > alternative sources.
> > > How about it? EXACTLY how does this work?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >

'

ranger440c5 · Post by **ranger440c5** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 8:39 am

'Good morning Bob,
Apparrently your mechanic/IA believes also that it required
approval. Your Microair is part of an approved INSTALLATION.
However, if it poops out won't it need to be approved again? The blk
3 sign off is good for that single installation only using the exact
parts only for the initial installation is it not? So if some of
those parts were not previously approved and they are to be replaced
don't they need to be approved again? This would seem the case since
if a radio is non-TSO'd there are no Aviation Agency related
specifications it is required to meet and therefore no assurance of
part to part consistency other than the manufacturer's own (in this
instance, an Australian firm, who is holding their feet to the fire?).

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "rangerrobertmn"
wrote:

> Hello Ranger440c5,
>
> I have a Microair Electronics tranciever installed in my Fairchild
> 24. I have a 337 on which Block #3 is signed and dated 4/10/2000,
> and Block #7 is signed and dated 4-21-00.
>
> Bob Waldron
> 1939 Fairchild 24 K
> Stillwater, MN
>
>
>
> --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "ranger440c5"
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the response.
> > So to install a Microair you need a "field approval". The
> proceedure
> > you described for this is EXACTLY how to handle such operations.

I

> > have run this route on many blk 3 approvals and it works well.
> Well
> > done.
> > The question lies in it's necessity. I have received a response
> from
> > a member stating that pt91 operations require no TSO. Welllllll,
> yes
> > and no. The ELT has to be TSO-C91a and this is in pt 91 ops. So

pt

> 91
> > does require TSO'd equipment. I think the answer to this is a
> little
> > between the lines. Though not clearly stated, we must equate
> > that "approved articles" (ref pt 21) means it meets the

applicable

> > TSO for that article. In other words, to be "previously approved
> by
> > the agency" it meets a TSO? Therefore TSO'd. If installing an
> article
> > in a normal catagory aircraft, if not supplied by the aircraft
> > manufacturer, then must be previously approved(TSO) by the Agency
> > (FAA). Based on this I am inclined to agree with you Jaime(and

our

> > local FSDO).
> > The jist is this, for owners who want to have an item installed,
> the
> > lesscostly non-TSO item may cost more when installed and

paperwork

> is
> > processed and there is a downtime factor while awaiting possible
> > delays in the approval process. Remember what Jaime stated fill
> out a
> > 337, acquire supporting data, apply for approval, THEN order
> > hardware, install, and lastly file said paperwork.
> > So how many of the Microair owners out there have a 337 with blk
> 3
> > signed and dated BEFORE the IA signed and dated blk7?
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie S. Treat"
> > wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > As an IA I do it this way.
> > >
> > > If it has an TSO or FAA/PMA then it can go legally on the
> aircraft.
> > It may
> > > or may not require a FAA based on a STC. At a minium it will
> > require
> > > logbook, W&B, and equiplist update.
> > >
> > > If it is not an TSO or FAA/PMA approved item, it will require

at

> > the minium.
> > > FAA 337, field approval, with continuation of airworthness to

be

> > completed,
> > > any and all data the FAA may need to accompany the FAA 337 for
> > block 3
> > > endorsement.
> > >
> > > Take for instance the installation of a Non FAA/PMA approved

nor

> > TSOd engine
> > > preoiler. I am doing three of them right now. I will submitt a
> > unsigned FAA
> > > 337 completed with all the data including photos, tech data,

and

> > drawings to
> > > the FAA for block 3 approval. If approved I will then purchase
> > hardware and
> > > install. I as the IA will return to service after install.
> > >
> > > Point is, you must work with your FAA office and work out the
> > details prior
> > > to purchase and install. Providing them the correct data in a
> > logical sense
> > > has never let me down in 25 years.
> > >
> > > Please feel free to call me for assistance. Advice is free.
> > >
> > > Jamie S. Treat A&P/IA
> > > Aircraft Restoration & Repair
> > > 24201 David C. Johnson Loop
> > > Kelly Airpark
> > > Elbert, CO 80106
> > > HM/Shop 303-648-0130
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "ranger440c5"
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:55 AM
> > > Subject: [fairchildclub] Microair and others
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > While on the subject of the Microair radios I have a question
> > > > regarding these and similar items. For those out there with
> > > > regulation prowess and a penchant for proper paperwork.....
> > > > Can someone explain how the TSO rating on these appliances
> impacts
> > > > installation? EXACTLY what this means as far as can it be
> legally
> > > > installed in normal catagory aircraft? How is this getting
> done? I
> > > > understand the TSO is there to assure the item meets certain
> > criteria
> > > > for the given appliance and as such if an item is not TSO'd
> > (Microair
> > > > products are not) then is it legal for installation in a

normal

> > > > standard aircraft? Smaller items such as gages that are not
> TSO'd
> > are
> > > > usually intended for experimental applications. It appears to
> me
> > that
> > > > this is a quasi problem, a real gray area that could go

either

> way
> > > > depending on the FSDO. I get the feeling that our FSDO leans
> > toward
> > > > the direction of NO, if it is not TSO'd then the only way

it's

> > going
> > > > in the plane is by field approval. I have seen lots of these
> non
> > > > TSO'd items in planes and I wonder if anyone has actually
> > processed
> > > > this correctly. Did they simply throw it in there and fill
> out a
> > > > 337? It goes through the FSDO w/o any scrutiny? I have asked
> many
> > > > IA's about this and get responses from shoulder shrug beats

me

> to
> > I
> > > > dunno. An item to relate to is seatbelts. I don't think there
> is
> > an
> > > > IA in the world that would install or sign off an airplane
> (non-
> > > > experimental) with out TSO'd belts. They all seem to know
> about
> > this
> > > > one, but what about the avionics? I have avoided these non-
> TSO'd
> > > > products to bypass any of the above concerns as it appeared

to

> be
> > the
> > > > only surefire way to stay clear of unforseen pitfalls. If

this

> > matter
> > > > were definitively put to rest, it would certainly open up some
> > > > alternative sources.
> > > > How about it? EXACTLY how does this work?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >

'

rangerrobertmn · Post by **rangerrobertmn** » Sat Sep 18, 2004 5:42 pm

'Hello Ranger440c5,

I fly for fun. I truely enjoy flying the Fairchild. My IA tries to
keep my airplanes legal, and I try to keep his couputer running.
Life is great. I don't have the slightest worry about what to do
when my wonderful radio 'poops out'. It is something that I will
have to address at that time.

I have great admiration for the AUSTRALIANS at MicroAir. The only
time that I dealt with them the bent way over backwards for me. I
am VERY impressed by the people in the Microair company. I would
not hesitate to buy another product from them for another airplane.

Happily flying around Stillwater MN and communicating clearly on my
Microair

Bob Waldron
1939 Fairchild 24K
1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
1941 Piper J-3 F65

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "ranger440c5"
wrote:

> Good morning Bob,
> Apparrently your mechanic/IA believes also that it required
> approval. Your Microair is part of an approved INSTALLATION.
> However, if it poops out won't it need to be approved again? The

blk

> 3 sign off is good for that single installation only using the

exact

> parts only for the initial installation is it not? So if some of
> those parts were not previously approved and they are to be

replaced

> don't they need to be approved again? This would seem the case

since

> if a radio is non-TSO'd there are no Aviation Agency related
> specifications it is required to meet and therefore no assurance

of

> part to part consistency other than the manufacturer's own (in

this

> instance, an Australian firm, who is holding their feet to the

fire?).

>
>
> --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "rangerrobertmn"
> wrote:
> > Hello Ranger440c5,
> >
> > I have a Microair Electronics tranciever installed in my

Fairchild

> > 24. I have a 337 on which Block #3 is signed and dated

4/10/2000,

> > and Block #7 is signed and dated 4-21-00.
> >
> > Bob Waldron
> > 1939 Fairchild 24 K
> > Stillwater, MN
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "ranger440c5"

> > wrote:
> > > Thanks for the response.
> > > So to install a Microair you need a "field approval". The
> > proceedure
> > > you described for this is EXACTLY how to handle such

operations.

> I
> > > have run this route on many blk 3 approvals and it works well.
> > Well
> > > done.
> > > The question lies in it's necessity. I have received a

response

> > from
> > > a member stating that pt91 operations require no TSO.

Welllllll,

> > yes
> > > and no. The ELT has to be TSO-C91a and this is in pt 91 ops.

So

> pt
> > 91
> > > does require TSO'd equipment. I think the answer to this is a
> > little
> > > between the lines. Though not clearly stated, we must equate
> > > that "approved articles" (ref pt 21) means it meets the
> applicable
> > > TSO for that article. In other words, to be "previously

approved

> > by
> > > the agency" it meets a TSO? Therefore TSO'd. If installing an
> > article
> > > in a normal catagory aircraft, if not supplied by the aircraft
> > > manufacturer, then must be previously approved(TSO) by the

Agency

> > > (FAA). Based on this I am inclined to agree with you Jaime(and
> our
> > > local FSDO).
> > > The jist is this, for owners who want to have an item

installed,

> > the
> > > lesscostly non-TSO item may cost more when installed and
> paperwork
> > is
> > > processed and there is a downtime factor while awaiting

possible

> > > delays in the approval process. Remember what Jaime stated

fill

> > out a
> > > 337, acquire supporting data, apply for approval, THEN order
> > > hardware, install, and lastly file said paperwork.
> > > So how many of the Microair owners out there have a 337 with

blk

> > 3
> > > signed and dated BEFORE the IA signed and dated blk7?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie S. Treat"
> > > wrote:
> > > > All,
> > > >
> > > > As an IA I do it this way.
> > > >
> > > > If it has an TSO or FAA/PMA then it can go legally on the
> > aircraft.
> > > It may
> > > > or may not require a FAA based on a STC. At a minium it will
> > > require
> > > > logbook, W&B, and equiplist update.
> > > >
> > > > If it is not an TSO or FAA/PMA approved item, it will

require

> at
> > > the minium.
> > > > FAA 337, field approval, with continuation of airworthness

to

> be
> > > completed,
> > > > any and all data the FAA may need to accompany the FAA 337

for

> > > block 3
> > > > endorsement.
> > > >
> > > > Take for instance the installation of a Non FAA/PMA approved
> nor
> > > TSOd engine
> > > > preoiler. I am doing three of them right now. I will submitt

a

> > > unsigned FAA
> > > > 337 completed with all the data including photos, tech data,
> and
> > > drawings to
> > > > the FAA for block 3 approval. If approved I will then

purchase

> > > hardware and
> > > > install. I as the IA will return to service after install.
> > > >
> > > > Point is, you must work with your FAA office and work out

the

> > > details prior
> > > > to purchase and install. Providing them the correct data in

a

> > > logical sense
> > > > has never let me down in 25 years.
> > > >
> > > > Please feel free to call me for assistance. Advice is free.
> > > >
> > > > Jamie S. Treat A&P/IA
> > > > Aircraft Restoration & Repair
> > > > 24201 David C. Johnson Loop
> > > > Kelly Airpark
> > > > Elbert, CO 80106
> > > > HM/Shop 303-648-0130
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "ranger440c5"
> > > > To:
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:55 AM
> > > > Subject: [fairchildclub] Microair and others
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > While on the subject of the Microair radios I have a

question

> > > > > regarding these and similar items. For those out there with
> > > > > regulation prowess and a penchant for proper paperwork.....
> > > > > Can someone explain how the TSO rating on these appliances
> > impacts
> > > > > installation? EXACTLY what this means as far as can it be
> > legally
> > > > > installed in normal catagory aircraft? How is this getting
> > done? I
> > > > > understand the TSO is there to assure the item meets

certain

> > > criteria
> > > > > for the given appliance and as such if an item is not

TSO'd

> > > (Microair
> > > > > products are not) then is it legal for installation in a
> normal
> > > > > standard aircraft? Smaller items such as gages that are

not

> > TSO'd
> > > are
> > > > > usually intended for experimental applications. It appears

to

> > me
> > > that
> > > > > this is a quasi problem, a real gray area that could go
> either
> > way
> > > > > depending on the FSDO. I get the feeling that our FSDO

leans

> > > toward
> > > > > the direction of NO, if it is not TSO'd then the only way
> it's
> > > going
> > > > > in the plane is by field approval. I have seen lots of

these

> > non
> > > > > TSO'd items in planes and I wonder if anyone has actually
> > > processed
> > > > > this correctly. Did they simply throw it in there and

fill

> > out a
> > > > > 337? It goes through the FSDO w/o any scrutiny? I have

asked

> > many
> > > > > IA's about this and get responses from shoulder shrug

beats

> me
> > to
> > > I
> > > > > dunno. An item to relate to is seatbelts. I don't think

there

> > is
> > > an
> > > > > IA in the world that would install or sign off an airplane
> > (non-
> > > > > experimental) with out TSO'd belts. They all seem to know
> > about
> > > this
> > > > > one, but what about the avionics? I have avoided these non-
> > TSO'd
> > > > > products to bypass any of the above concerns as it

appeared

> to
> > be
> > > the
> > > > > only surefire way to stay clear of unforseen pitfalls. If
> this
> > > matter
> > > > > were definitively put to rest, it would certainly open up

some

> > > > > alternative sources.
> > > > > How about it? EXACTLY how does this work?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >

'

Buell Powell · Post by **Buell Powell** » Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:51 am

'

----- Original Message -----
From: "rangerrobertmn"
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:42 PM
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: Microair and others

> Hello Ranger440c5,
>
> I fly for fun. I truely enjoy flying the Fairchild. My IA tries to
> keep my airplanes legal, and I try to keep his couputer running.
> Life is great. I don't have the slightest worry about what to do
> when my wonderful radio 'poops out'. It is something that I will
> have to address at that time.
>
> I have great admiration for the AUSTRALIANS at MicroAir. The only
> time that I dealt with them the bent way over backwards for me. I
> am VERY impressed by the people in the Microair company. I would
> not hesitate to buy another product from them for another airplane.
>
>
> Happily flying around Stillwater MN and communicating clearly on my
> Microair
>
> Bob Waldron
> 1939 Fairchild 24K
> 1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
> 1941 Piper J-3 F65
>
>
>
> --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "ranger440c5"
> wrote:
> > Good morning Bob,
> > Apparrently your mechanic/IA believes also that it required
> > approval. Your Microair is part of an approved INSTALLATION.
> > However, if it poops out won't it need to be approved again? The
> blk
> > 3 sign off is good for that single installation only using the
> exact
> > parts only for the initial installation is it not? So if some of
> > those parts were not previously approved and they are to be
> replaced
> > don't they need to be approved again? This would seem the case
> since
> > if a radio is non-TSO'd there are no Aviation Agency related
> > specifications it is required to meet and therefore no assurance
> of
> > part to part consistency other than the manufacturer's own (in
> this
> > instance, an Australian firm, who is holding their feet to the
> fire?).
> >
> >
> > --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "rangerrobertmn"
> > wrote:
> > > Hello Ranger440c5,
> > >
> > > I have a Microair Electronics tranciever installed in my
> Fairchild
> > > 24. I have a 337 on which Block #3 is signed and dated
> 4/10/2000,
> > > and Block #7 is signed and dated 4-21-00.
> > >
> > > Bob Waldron
> > > 1939 Fairchild 24 K
> > > Stillwater, MN
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "ranger440c5"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the response.
> > > > So to install a Microair you need a "field approval". The
> > > proceedure
> > > > you described for this is EXACTLY how to handle such
> operations.
> > I
> > > > have run this route on many blk 3 approvals and it works well.
> > > Well
> > > > done.
> > > > The question lies in it's necessity. I have received a
> response
> > > from
> > > > a member stating that pt91 operations require no TSO.
> Welllllll,
> > > yes
> > > > and no. The ELT has to be TSO-C91a and this is in pt 91 ops.
> So
> > pt
> > > 91
> > > > does require TSO'd equipment. I think the answer to this is a
> > > little
> > > > between the lines. Though not clearly stated, we must equate
> > > > that "approved articles" (ref pt 21) means it meets the
> > applicable
> > > > TSO for that article. In other words, to be "previously
> approved
> > > by
> > > > the agency" it meets a TSO? Therefore TSO'd. If installing an
> > > article
> > > > in a normal catagory aircraft, if not supplied by the aircraft
> > > > manufacturer, then must be previously approved(TSO) by the
> Agency
> > > > (FAA). Based on this I am inclined to agree with you Jaime(and
> > our
> > > > local FSDO).
> > > > The jist is this, for owners who want to have an item
> installed,
> > > the
> > > > lesscostly non-TSO item may cost more when installed and
> > paperwork
> > > is
> > > > processed and there is a downtime factor while awaiting
> possible
> > > > delays in the approval process. Remember what Jaime stated
> fill
> > > out a
> > > > 337, acquire supporting data, apply for approval, THEN order
> > > > hardware, install, and lastly file said paperwork.
> > > > So how many of the Microair owners out there have a 337 with
> blk
> > > 3
> > > > signed and dated BEFORE the IA signed and dated blk7?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie S. Treat"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > As an IA I do it this way.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it has an TSO or FAA/PMA then it can go legally on the
> > > aircraft.
> > > > It may
> > > > > or may not require a FAA based on a STC. At a minium it will
> > > > require
> > > > > logbook, W&B, and equiplist update.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it is not an TSO or FAA/PMA approved item, it will
> require
> > at
> > > > the minium.
> > > > > FAA 337, field approval, with continuation of airworthness
> to
> > be
> > > > completed,
> > > > > any and all data the FAA may need to accompany the FAA 337
> for
> > > > block 3
> > > > > endorsement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take for instance the installation of a Non FAA/PMA approved
> > nor
> > > > TSOd engine
> > > > > preoiler. I am doing three of them right now. I will submitt
> a
> > > > unsigned FAA
> > > > > 337 completed with all the data including photos, tech data,
> > and
> > > > drawings to
> > > > > the FAA for block 3 approval. If approved I will then
> purchase
> > > > hardware and
> > > > > install. I as the IA will return to service after install.
> > > > >
> > > > > Point is, you must work with your FAA office and work out
> the
> > > > details prior
> > > > > to purchase and install. Providing them the correct data in
> a
> > > > logical sense
> > > > > has never let me down in 25 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please feel free to call me for assistance. Advice is free.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jamie S. Treat A&P/IA
> > > > > Aircraft Restoration & Repair
> > > > > 24201 David C. Johnson Loop
> > > > > Kelly Airpark
> > > > > Elbert, CO 80106
> > > > > HM/Shop 303-648-0130
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "ranger440c5"
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:55 AM
> > > > > Subject: [fairchildclub] Microair and others
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While on the subject of the Microair radios I have a
> question
> > > > > > regarding these and similar items. For those out there with
> > > > > > regulation prowess and a penchant for proper paperwork.....
> > > > > > Can someone explain how the TSO rating on these appliances
> > > impacts
> > > > > > installation? EXACTLY what this means as far as can it be
> > > legally
> > > > > > installed in normal catagory aircraft? How is this getting
> > > done? I
> > > > > > understand the TSO is there to assure the item meets
> certain
> > > > criteria
> > > > > > for the given appliance and as such if an item is not
> TSO'd
> > > > (Microair
> > > > > > products are not) then is it legal for installation in a
> > normal
> > > > > > standard aircraft? Smaller items such as gages that are
> not
> > > TSO'd
> > > > are
> > > > > > usually intended for experimental applications. It appears
> to
> > > me
> > > > that
> > > > > > this is a quasi problem, a real gray area that could go
> > either
> > > way
> > > > > > depending on the FSDO. I get the feeling that our FSDO
> leans
> > > > toward
> > > > > > the direction of NO, if it is not TSO'd then the only way
> > it's
> > > > going
> > > > > > in the plane is by field approval. I have seen lots of
> these
> > > non
> > > > > > TSO'd items in planes and I wonder if anyone has actually
> > > > processed
> > > > > > this correctly. Did they simply throw it in there and
> fill
> > > out a
> > > > > > 337? It goes through the FSDO w/o any scrutiny? I have
> asked
> > > many
> > > > > > IA's about this and get responses from shoulder shrug
> beats
> > me
> > > to
> > > > I
> > > > > > dunno. An item to relate to is seatbelts. I don't think
> there
> > > is
> > > > an
> > > > > > IA in the world that would install or sign off an airplane
> > > (non-
> > > > > > experimental) with out TSO'd belts. They all seem to know
> > > about
> > > > this
> > > > > > one, but what about the avionics? I have avoided these non-
> > > TSO'd
> > > > > > products to bypass any of the above concerns as it
> appeared
> > to
> > > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > only surefire way to stay clear of unforseen pitfalls. If
> > this
> > > > matter
> > > > > > were definitively put to rest, it would certainly open up
> some
> > > > > > alternative sources.
> > > > > > How about it? EXACTLY how does this work?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

'

Buell Powell · Post by **Buell Powell** » Mon Sep 20, 2004 2:13 pm

'Hi Bob,
I totaly agree- I also so some work for my IA in exchange
for helping to keep my airplane legal (mostly on his Champ). I asked about
some of the legal problems that came up on the e-mails and he thinks that I
should be able to use the microair without too much hassle-probably a 337
form. I really like the way it looks and all I need is a com radio-I have a
hand held GPS.
Thanks again for the information,
Buell Powell
1941 T/craft
1946 F24 (someday)

----- Original Message -----
From: "rangerrobertmn"
To:
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 6:42 PM
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: Microair and others

> Hello Ranger440c5,
>
> I fly for fun. I truely enjoy flying the Fairchild. My IA tries to
> keep my airplanes legal, and I try to keep his couputer running.
> Life is great. I don't have the slightest worry about what to do
> when my wonderful radio 'poops out'. It is something that I will
> have to address at that time.
>
> I have great admiration for the AUSTRALIANS at MicroAir. The only
> time that I dealt with them the bent way over backwards for me. I
> am VERY impressed by the people in the Microair company. I would
> not hesitate to buy another product from them for another airplane.
>
>
> Happily flying around Stillwater MN and communicating clearly on my
> Microair
>
> Bob Waldron
> 1939 Fairchild 24K
> 1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
> 1941 Piper J-3 F65
>
>
>
> --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "ranger440c5"
> wrote:
> > Good morning Bob,
> > Apparrently your mechanic/IA believes also that it required
> > approval. Your Microair is part of an approved INSTALLATION.
> > However, if it poops out won't it need to be approved again? The
> blk
> > 3 sign off is good for that single installation only using the
> exact
> > parts only for the initial installation is it not? So if some of
> > those parts were not previously approved and they are to be
> replaced
> > don't they need to be approved again? This would seem the case
> since
> > if a radio is non-TSO'd there are no Aviation Agency related
> > specifications it is required to meet and therefore no assurance
> of
> > part to part consistency other than the manufacturer's own (in
> this
> > instance, an Australian firm, who is holding their feet to the
> fire?).
> >
> >
> > --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "rangerrobertmn"
> > wrote:
> > > Hello Ranger440c5,
> > >
> > > I have a Microair Electronics tranciever installed in my
> Fairchild
> > > 24. I have a 337 on which Block #3 is signed and dated
> 4/10/2000,
> > > and Block #7 is signed and dated 4-21-00.
> > >
> > > Bob Waldron
> > > 1939 Fairchild 24 K
> > > Stillwater, MN
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "ranger440c5"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the response.
> > > > So to install a Microair you need a "field approval". The
> > > proceedure
> > > > you described for this is EXACTLY how to handle such
> operations.
> > I
> > > > have run this route on many blk 3 approvals and it works well.
> > > Well
> > > > done.
> > > > The question lies in it's necessity. I have received a
> response
> > > from
> > > > a member stating that pt91 operations require no TSO.
> Welllllll,
> > > yes
> > > > and no. The ELT has to be TSO-C91a and this is in pt 91 ops.
> So
> > pt
> > > 91
> > > > does require TSO'd equipment. I think the answer to this is a
> > > little
> > > > between the lines. Though not clearly stated, we must equate
> > > > that "approved articles" (ref pt 21) means it meets the
> > applicable
> > > > TSO for that article. In other words, to be "previously
> approved
> > > by
> > > > the agency" it meets a TSO? Therefore TSO'd. If installing an
> > > article
> > > > in a normal catagory aircraft, if not supplied by the aircraft
> > > > manufacturer, then must be previously approved(TSO) by the
> Agency
> > > > (FAA). Based on this I am inclined to agree with you Jaime(and
> > our
> > > > local FSDO).
> > > > The jist is this, for owners who want to have an item
> installed,
> > > the
> > > > lesscostly non-TSO item may cost more when installed and
> > paperwork
> > > is
> > > > processed and there is a downtime factor while awaiting
> possible
> > > > delays in the approval process. Remember what Jaime stated
> fill
> > > out a
> > > > 337, acquire supporting data, apply for approval, THEN order
> > > > hardware, install, and lastly file said paperwork.
> > > > So how many of the Microair owners out there have a 337 with
> blk
> > > 3
> > > > signed and dated BEFORE the IA signed and dated blk7?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie S. Treat"
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > All,
> > > > >
> > > > > As an IA I do it this way.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it has an TSO or FAA/PMA then it can go legally on the
> > > aircraft.
> > > > It may
> > > > > or may not require a FAA based on a STC. At a minium it will
> > > > require
> > > > > logbook, W&B, and equiplist update.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it is not an TSO or FAA/PMA approved item, it will
> require
> > at
> > > > the minium.
> > > > > FAA 337, field approval, with continuation of airworthness
> to
> > be
> > > > completed,
> > > > > any and all data the FAA may need to accompany the FAA 337
> for
> > > > block 3
> > > > > endorsement.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take for instance the installation of a Non FAA/PMA approved
> > nor
> > > > TSOd engine
> > > > > preoiler. I am doing three of them right now. I will submitt
> a
> > > > unsigned FAA
> > > > > 337 completed with all the data including photos, tech data,
> > and
> > > > drawings to
> > > > > the FAA for block 3 approval. If approved I will then
> purchase
> > > > hardware and
> > > > > install. I as the IA will return to service after install.
> > > > >
> > > > > Point is, you must work with your FAA office and work out
> the
> > > > details prior
> > > > > to purchase and install. Providing them the correct data in
> a
> > > > logical sense
> > > > > has never let me down in 25 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please feel free to call me for assistance. Advice is free.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jamie S. Treat A&P/IA
> > > > > Aircraft Restoration & Repair
> > > > > 24201 David C. Johnson Loop
> > > > > Kelly Airpark
> > > > > Elbert, CO 80106
> > > > > HM/Shop 303-648-0130
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "ranger440c5"
> > > > > To:
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 8:55 AM
> > > > > Subject: [fairchildclub] Microair and others
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > While on the subject of the Microair radios I have a
> question
> > > > > > regarding these and similar items. For those out there with
> > > > > > regulation prowess and a penchant for proper paperwork.....
> > > > > > Can someone explain how the TSO rating on these appliances
> > > impacts
> > > > > > installation? EXACTLY what this means as far as can it be
> > > legally
> > > > > > installed in normal catagory aircraft? How is this getting
> > > done? I
> > > > > > understand the TSO is there to assure the item meets
> certain
> > > > criteria
> > > > > > for the given appliance and as such if an item is not
> TSO'd
> > > > (Microair
> > > > > > products are not) then is it legal for installation in a
> > normal
> > > > > > standard aircraft? Smaller items such as gages that are
> not
> > > TSO'd
> > > > are
> > > > > > usually intended for experimental applications. It appears
> to
> > > me
> > > > that
> > > > > > this is a quasi problem, a real gray area that could go
> > either
> > > way
> > > > > > depending on the FSDO. I get the feeling that our FSDO
> leans
> > > > toward
> > > > > > the direction of NO, if it is not TSO'd then the only way
> > it's
> > > > going
> > > > > > in the plane is by field approval. I have seen lots of
> these
> > > non
> > > > > > TSO'd items in planes and I wonder if anyone has actually
> > > > processed
> > > > > > this correctly. Did they simply throw it in there and
> fill
> > > out a
> > > > > > 337? It goes through the FSDO w/o any scrutiny? I have
> asked
> > > many
> > > > > > IA's about this and get responses from shoulder shrug
> beats
> > me
> > > to
> > > > I
> > > > > > dunno. An item to relate to is seatbelts. I don't think
> there
> > > is
> > > > an
> > > > > > IA in the world that would install or sign off an airplane
> > > (non-
> > > > > > experimental) with out TSO'd belts. They all seem to know
> > > about
> > > > this
> > > > > > one, but what about the avionics? I have avoided these non-
> > > TSO'd
> > > > > > products to bypass any of the above concerns as it
> appeared
> > to
> > > be
> > > > the
> > > > > > only surefire way to stay clear of unforseen pitfalls. If
> > this
> > > > matter
> > > > > > were definitively put to rest, it would certainly open up
> some
> > > > > > alternative sources.
> > > > > > How about it? EXACTLY how does this work?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

'

ranger440c5 · Post by **ranger440c5** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:16 pm

'Evening Bob,
To that end, as it should be! I believe I have found the definitive
solution. I haven't figured out how to fly yet. I merely flop about
like a fish out of water and meander aimlessly like a drunken
sailor.I am sure my flight path provides hours of entertainment for
the hapless controller who unwittingly tracks me. I once had a GPS
but scared my self when I had to expand the little HSI path to
display 20 miles either side of programmed flight path to contain my
actual plot trail. It didn't look that bad when the moving map was
scaled out to 300 miles. I like to think of this as an aerial version
of what sailors call tacking, and I think they regard tacking as a
skill that requires years to master. Man, I'm way ahead on that one.
This can be attributed to establishing a course according to the
direction the cows are heading. It seems there is a conspiracy as no
2 herds have the same destination, therfore I have to do a bit of
interpolation. The most disturbing problem is my 24 is so far out of
rig the cows can out run me to the loafing shed. We won't get into
holding altitude.....1 axis at a time please.

--- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "rangerrobertmn"
wrote:

> Hello Ranger440c5,
>
> I fly for fun. I truely enjoy flying the Fairchild. My IA tries

to

> keep my airplanes legal, and I try to keep his couputer running.
> Life is great. I don't have the slightest worry about what to do
> when my wonderful radio 'poops out'. It is something that I will
> have to address at that time.
>
> I have great admiration for the AUSTRALIANS at MicroAir. The only
> time that I dealt with them the bent way over backwards for me. I
> am VERY impressed by the people in the Microair company. I would
> not hesitate to buy another product from them for another airplane.
>
>
> Happily flying around Stillwater MN and communicating clearly on my
> Microair
>
> Bob Waldron
> 1939 Fairchild 24K
> 1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
> 1941 Piper J-3 F65

'

Buell Powell · Post by **Buell Powell** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 1:27 pm

'I suppose a lot of pilots these days would think that without using
a GPS, VOR, or Whatever, you might as well be floping around like a fish. I
would have to disagree. I think it takes more skill and is much more
rewarding to use the old nav skills like dead reckoning and pilotage. My
father was an instructer before he joined the Air Core's war training
program in 1942. I am luckey because when he visits we always go for some
trips in my T/craft. His most advanced piece of nav. equipment is an old
military E6B computer. Somehow though he can figure the wind speed, wind
direction, and true course without using it. He is also giving me
instructions on flying IFR with the only instuments I have in my
T/craft-airspeed, ailtimeter, rate of climp, and turn indicator, just in
case I find myself in bad weather. He thinks the GPS takes the fun out of
flying and I sort of agree. My wife and I are planning about an 800 mile
trip next week and half the fun is the map work etc. Besides it takes the
trip more enjoyable for the wife if she can help me look for checkpoints and
mark the times to figure groundspeed instead of just looking out the window
in boredom.
Well, whatever type of flying you like to do. Be safe and enjoy it. We
are really lucky to live where we can still just flop around like a fish if
we want to.
Buell Powell
PS
Thanks again to everyone for the information about the radios. If I
do end up with a microair radio I am going to take Jamie's advice about
checking with the FAA first and not worry to much about it after it is
installed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "ranger440c5"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2004 9:15 PM
Subject: [fairchildclub] Re: Microair and others

> Evening Bob,
> To that end, as it should be! I believe I have found the definitive
> solution. I haven't figured out how to fly yet. I merely flop about
> like a fish out of water and meander aimlessly like a drunken
> sailor.I am sure my flight path provides hours of entertainment for
> the hapless controller who unwittingly tracks me. I once had a GPS
> but scared my self when I had to expand the little HSI path to
> display 20 miles either side of programmed flight path to contain my
> actual plot trail. It didn't look that bad when the moving map was
> scaled out to 300 miles. I like to think of this as an aerial version
> of what sailors call tacking, and I think they regard tacking as a
> skill that requires years to master. Man, I'm way ahead on that one.
> This can be attributed to establishing a course according to the
> direction the cows are heading. It seems there is a conspiracy as no
> 2 herds have the same destination, therfore I have to do a bit of
> interpolation. The most disturbing problem is my 24 is so far out of
> rig the cows can out run me to the loafing shed. We won't get into
> holding altitude.....1 axis at a time please.
>
>
> --- In fairchildclub@yahoogroups.com, "rangerrobertmn"
> wrote:
> > Hello Ranger440c5,
> >
> > I fly for fun. I truely enjoy flying the Fairchild. My IA tries
> to
> > keep my airplanes legal, and I try to keep his couputer running.
> > Life is great. I don't have the slightest worry about what to do
> > when my wonderful radio 'poops out'. It is something that I will
> > have to address at that time.
> >
> > I have great admiration for the AUSTRALIANS at MicroAir. The only
> > time that I dealt with them the bent way over backwards for me. I
> > am VERY impressed by the people in the Microair company. I would
> > not hesitate to buy another product from them for another airplane.
> >
> >
> > Happily flying around Stillwater MN and communicating clearly on my
> > Microair
> >
> > Bob Waldron
> > 1939 Fairchild 24K
> > 1940 Taylorcraft BL-65
> > 1941 Piper J-3 F65
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

'