91.215 and 91.225

[bluejeepdad]

So, I've never understood the wording of these transponder and ADS-B rules:

(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed


What I don't understand is the "or". With the "or" in there this rule doesn't make much sense. For example, take an airplane that came from the factory with no generator, it meets the first case (not originally certificated with an electrical system). That airplane will always meet that first case because it's history can't change. So it will always be exempt from the transponder requirement. It doesn't matter weather it meets the second case (has not been subsequently certified with an electrical system) because of the "or"; meet either one and you're OK.


I don't think that's what the FAA intends with this rule. I think they mean that if you add an engine driven electrical system then you need a transponder, but if so they should have written this with an "and". This wording was copied from 91.215 into 92.225, which tells me that no one at the FAA saw any problem with it. Am I missing something here?

Tim

[deandayton]

So, I've never understood the wording of these transponder and ADS-B rules:

(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed

I think their intent was to prevent someone from removing an electrical system as a way of skirting the transponder requirement. For instance, a Vagabond that was upgraded to a C85 with electrical system would not be allowed to avoid having a transponder by removing the generator.

[Steve Pierce]

I think their intent was to prevent someone from removing an electrical system as a way of skirting the transponder requirement. For instance, a Vagabond that was upgraded to a C85 with electrical system would not be allowed to avoid having a transponder by removing the generator.

I agree, never had an electrical system installed.

[bluejeepdad]

I think their intent was to prevent someone from removing an electrical system as a way of skirting the transponder requirement. For instance, a Vagabond that was upgraded to a C85 with electrical system would not be allowed to avoid having a transponder by removing the generator.

I understand that's what they intended, but that's not what the rule says. What I'm getting at is that the rule, as written, doesn't say what the FAA thinks it says. The way it's written you have two ways to qualify for the exemption:

1. the airplane was originally certificated without and electrical system
2. the airplane has not, since original certification, been certified with an electrical system

The Vagabond meets number 1. It doesn't matter if it meets number 2 or not because these are two separate options to get the exemption. The owner of the Vagabond could choose option number 1 and fly without a transponder/ADS-B.

Tim

[Steve Pierce]

(e) The requirements of paragraph (b) of this section do not apply to any aircraft that was not originally certificated with an electrical system, or that has not subsequently been certified with such a system installed

I read it as not required if the airplane was not certified with an electrical system or has not had an electrical system ever approved on it (field approval for instanace).

What are you wanting to do?

[Gilbert Pierce]

I thought it was pretty simple; if the airplane ever had an electrical system even if it doesn’t have one now you will need ADSB if you fly in controlled airspace.

[rideandfly]

Found a letter from the FAA Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations written 1/17.

The Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations stated: "The FAA may consider a technical amendment in the future to remove any confusion due to the discrepancy between the language in 91.215 (a) (5) and 91.225 (e)"

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/Schober%20signed.pdf

[Gilbert Pierce]

That brings up more ambiguity on another issue that Homer raised. “Meets the performance requirements of TSO C-166b.”
He does not say it needs to be TSO’d.

[51-pa22]

....“Meets the performance requirements .....”.

Is that like Jumbo Shrimp or a little pregnant?

[51-pa22]

I think they thrive on “Jumbo Shrimp” and ask for shrimp cocktail sauce with horse radish. or horse

I may just need to avoid certain areas or call and ask for permission to enter AS Needed.

Need to re re re reread the latest rules again to see and log the changes