Form One Questions
jcarlyle
arising out of curiosity on my part.
First, it appears to this US pilot that one of the uses of a Form One
is to certify that a new part is airworthy, with the basis for
airworthiness being that the part was made in accordance with a TSO or
some other approved technical specification. Is this correct?
Second, why would a plane made in Europe not have a Form One for all
installed equipment? Isn’t it necessary to certify that all of a new
aircraft’s equipment is airworthy? I ask because my LS8-18 (made in
2000) has Form Ones for the 4-point harness, nose hook, CG hook, main
wheel hub and brake, airspeed, altimeter, VHF radio, ELT and
transponder antenna. No Form Ones at all were supplied for the
transponder, encoder, SN10, Sage vario or VHF antenna. It isn’t a
matter of loss, because I have all of the Form Ones listed on the
original LS document transmittal letter.
-John
Robert Danewid
you have just discovered one area where we are way behind you
yanks...... our governments just love "bureaucrazy"!
Robert
ASW 28-18E
jcarlyle skrev:
> I�ve got two questions for European pilots regarding the Form One,
> arising out of curiosity on my part.
>
> First, it appears to this US pilot that one of the uses of a Form One
> is to certify that a new part is airworthy, with the basis for
> airworthiness being that the part was made in accordance with a TSO or
> some other approved technical specification. Is this correct?
>
> Second, why would a plane made in Europe not have a Form One for all
> installed equipment? Isn�t it necessary to certify that all of a new
> aircraft�s equipment is airworthy? I ask because my LS8-18 (made in
> 2000) has Form Ones for the 4-point harness, nose hook, CG hook, main
> wheel hub and brake, airspeed, altimeter, VHF radio, ELT and
> transponder antenna. No Form Ones at all were supplied for the
> transponder, encoder, SN10, Sage vario or VHF antenna. It isn�t a
John Smith
> First, it appears to this US pilot that one of the uses of a Form One
> is to certify that a new part is airworthy, with the basis for
> airworthiness being that the part was made in accordance with a TSO or
> some other approved technical specification. Is this correct?
Roughly said, yes. EASA Form 1 ist the exact equivalent of the FAA Form
8130�3, it even has the same blocks. (And EASA honors FAA 8130-3 forms.)
> Second, why would a plane made in Europe not have a Form One for all
> installed equipment?
Form 1 (or an equivalent certificate) is only required for required
equipment.
I'm not sure how transponders, radios and ELTs are handled because they
are not required but must be approved somehow.
Robert Danewid
/Robert
John Smith skrev:
jcarlyle
for things that aren't on either the Minimum Equipment List or the
Master Equipment List, while I'm missing Form Ones for things that ARE
on the Minimum Equipment List! Seems very haphazard - maybe it is a
"bureaucrazy"...
-John
On Nov 26, 3:45 pm, John Smith <john.sm...@for.example> wrote:
> Roughly said, yes. EASA Form 1 ist the exact equivalent of the FAA Form
> 8130–3, it even has the same blocks. (And EASA honors FAA 8130-3 forms.)
John Smith
> Who determines "required equipment" for Form One? I've got Form Ones
> for things that aren't on either the Minimum Equipment List or the
> Master Equipment List, while I'm missing Form Ones for things that ARE
> on the Minimum Equipment List! Seems very haphazard - maybe it is a
> "bureaucrazy"...
You can have your wrist watch TSOed if you wish and pay for it, but it
isn't required.
On the other hand, even TSOed instruments don't nessecairily come with a
Form 1. They most probably will today, but Form 1 is just a standardized
format for describing to which TSO a given aircraft part conforms, but
you can ask the manufactorer to confirm this in handwriting on the back
of a used envelope if you prefer this. This won't make anybody's life
easier, though. And don't forget that Form 1 didn't even exist a couple
of years ago, so the TSO certification of older instrument will most
probably have some random format unless they have been overhauled recently.
On yet another hand, you can even fill out a Form 1 also for non-TSOed
parts, if you like. Just leave block 13 empty or fill in: not TSOed.
jcarlyle
question.
You said earlier "Form 1 (or an equivalent certificate) is only
required for required equipment." I said earlier "I'm missing Form
Ones for things that are on the Minimum Equipment List!"
The MEL defines required equipment, doesn't it? If not, what IS the
definition of "required equipment" used to trigger the use of a Form
One?
-John
John Smith
> The MEL defines required equipment, doesn't it?
Yes, of course. But frankly, I'm no aviation attorney and even if I were
I couldn't comment on a glider I have never seen.
jcarlyle
Experimental airworthiness and Form Ones are useless to me. I'm just
trying to understand why LS didn't provide Form Ones for items that
appear to be required, and did provide Form Ones for things that
appear not to be required.
-John
Tim Mara
listed as "required equipment"
if is says there an altimeter, then it needs an altimeter.if it says an
altimeter model # ---- or equivilent meeting TSO ---- or ESA ---- ect then
you have to have one that meets or exceeds this standard of certifcation....
if it's not in the "required" instrument list then it isn't needed to meet
the TCDS...
there are really NO flight computers or electric variometers that ahve any
certifications...nearly all Winter Mechanical instruments including
variometers have ESA form one type approvals.few if any others do...PZL's
had some national certifcations but at the time they were most common this
was not recognised outside the old eastern block..today they might (not
sure, we really don't see many new PZL's) same for many others...obviously
PDA's, ClearNav's ect have no approval certificates at all but you will find
them common in gliders...they are simply "not required" by TCDS...this
however does not mean that just anyone can install them in any way they
want.the installations still have to be performed in such a way as outlined
in AC4313.....log entries, Wt/Bal ect still has to be performed, aircraft
type hardware, cables ect also should meet AC4313 ect.
you'll get unfortunately different answers from mechanics and even
(especially) the FAA inspectors themselves....so it does tend to remain
"grey" and subject to the that one paricular official's interpetation.
tim
Please visit the Wings & Wheels website at www.wingsandwheels.com
"jcarlyle" <jmca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f49db3db-db63-43c8...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
jcarlyle
Specifications of the manufacturer by referencing the LS Maintenance
Manual. No worries - my ship has all of the exact model instruments
(with TSOs) that are on the MEL.
What's confusing me is the seemingly arbitrary behavior by LS.
Consider:
1. A TSOed compass is required by the MEL. No compass was installed
by LS, as proven by the signed Equipment List carrying an LBA stamp.
Yet LS delivered a JAA Form 52 that states "it is hereby certified
that this aircraft conforms fully to the type certificated design"
with no exceptions or waivers listed.
2. An OAT is required by the MEL. LS installed one, but delivered no
Form One. Apparently it's not necessary to certify that a required
instrument is airworthy.
Maybe this behavior was caused by problems posed by the impending
bankrupcy of LS?
In the end, for me, flying the ship on an Experimental airworthiness
certificate in the US, none of this matters. For others, in different
countries, such arbitrary delivery of documents might be a big
problem.
-John
ASM
wrote:
> Well John..... usually Europe is far ahead of US in most respects,
> ASW 28-18E
>
> jcarlyle skrev:
Oh really? Where?
Jacek
Darryl Ramm
Ah for starters the value of their currency.
Darryl