Tailbeacon Installation

[6930]

Hi Victor,

Thanks for checking this and for posting. My IA and I are both aware of the FAA memorandum. We also know that an STC is not needed and we can piggy back off the C172 STC for the 140's with direct submittal to Oklahoma City (no field office approval needed). Link here for the memo:

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... -03-02.pdf

The issue is that the DuPage FSDO is pushing back. They told my mechanic in no uncertain terms...no. I talked to Uavionix and they have had issues with a number of FSDO's nationwide which they have had to address. I don't know what is up, specifically. But, I am trying to find another path forward (perhaps a different A&P/IA?). Meanwhile, I was hoping to hear from someone here in Northern Illinois that has completed the installation to see what experience they have had.

Regards,

Mike

[V529]

And as the saying goes, "there isn't just 'one' FAA"...............

Our FSDO PAI tells us that the "follow on" is what "everyone" is doing..................

[6277]

In addition to the STC authorizing the tailbeacon for the 172s, there is a supplemental permission letter at the tailbeacon website. The complete text of the letter is quoted below.

Subject: STC permission to use FAA STC SA04427CH for installation of uAvionix tailBeacon ADS-B Out Transmitter

Consistent with FAA Order 8110.4C and AC 21-40A, uAvionix Corporation grants permission to uAvionix dealers, installers, and owners of tailBeacon ADS-B Out Transmitter units to utilize FAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) SA04427CH and associated data, for the sole and express purpose of installation and approval of the uAvionix tailBeacon ADS-B Out Transmitter. uAvionix grants permissions to use the associated data for obtaining other FAA approved means of installation for aircraft not covered in STC SA04427CH, such as FAA Policy Memorandum, Installation Approval for ADS-B OUT Systems, dated March 2, 2016. Following the aircraft modification, a copy of this permission statement should be placed in the aircraft’s permanent records.

Am I missing something? I have the tailbeacon on my 140. No FSDO approval, just install it, check it, send the 337 to OK City and go fly!

[2066]

And as the saying goes, "there isn't just 'one' FAA"...............

Our FSDO PAI tells us that the "follow on" is what "everyone" is doing..................

It's the same with at least 3 FSDOs in our area that I'm aware of. Also, several local IAs have referenced this '16 FAA related "clarification" in routinely completing installations via "follow on": http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... -03-02.pdf

[6930]

Ray and Mac,

Thanks for your input. I hear you...it should be straight forward but it doesn't seem to be so for me. I started calling the UAvionix "authorized" installers and so far, had one tell me that before the install can be completed, the rudder should be removed and balanced. But, the balancing thing notwithstanding, he's not doing the installations anyway and has asked UAvionix to take him off their installer list.

I can't get this done without and IA signing off the installation and helping me get the 337 to Oklahoma City. Thus far, no luck. I'll keep at it and see where it takes me.

This is turning into a real drag. I think I'll sell my 140 and buy a nice 120 with and electrical system and skip the whole ADSB out thing.

Mike

[2066]

Wow, Mike...sure sorry that you're having to go through this! The ole "we're not happy 'til you're not happy" does seem to be rearing its head...even with the area IAs(?). Here's hoping that there'll still be someone appearing with a reasonable approach and solution. No doubt you're keeping the uAvionix folks in the loop on this -- it seems that they should have an interest in seeing it resolved, too. Hang in there -- keep us posted. Mac

[8170]

Why would you even go through the FSDO when the FAA says no field approval necessary? I plan on installing mine and filing as directed. Case closed.

[6643]

... the rudder should be removed and balanced. ...

I'd like to see him do that!

(The rudder is not a balanced control surface...)

[2066]

Why would you even go through the FSDO when the FAA says no field approval necessary? I plan on installing mine and filing as directed. Case closed.

Mike's issue is the 337 and requirement for IA completion/submission (Apparently all ADS-B out installs "require" a 337, even though not a "major alteration"?). uAvionix provides the exact 337 example along with their detailed instructions, of course. It seems and is amazing that the FSDO contact and a couple of IAs have appointed themselves as "hassle providers" when the product & installation apparently meets all of "their" requirements. Mac

[6930]

That’s it exactly, Mac.

“Hassle Providers”....I love it!

Mike