Return-Path: Sender: "Marvin Kaye" To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:34:32 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from www.dynacomm.ws ([198.22.63.66] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.8) with ESMTP id 654108 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 01 Feb 2005 14:23:06 -0500 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=198.22.63.66; envelope-from=lorn@dynacomm.ws Received: from [10.0.1.202] (adsl-69-209-177-12.dsl.sfldmi.ameritech.net [69.209.177.12]) by www.dynacomm.ws (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id j11JMX630725; Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:22:33 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Original-Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Original-Cc: "Jerry Lunceford" From: "Lorn H. Olsen" Subject: Re: TSO or not TSO... X-Original-Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2005 14:22:36 -0500 X-Original-To: Lancair List X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Jerry, To fly IFR, the altimeter, at least, needs a 2 year check by an instrument shop. One of the shops that I went to would not certify my altimeter and I had to buy a new one. Ask the shop that you will have your IFR checks done at, ahead of time. Lorn > I'm ready buy instruments and I've notice that non TSO'd > instruments are half the cost. So what's the difference? Are they > less accurate? Is the Experiential category required to have TSO'd > instruments? I plan to fly IFR and want dependable instruments, but if > this is a just bureaucracy tax, why should I? > > Thanks, > > Jerry W. Lunceford > Corpus Christi, TX > 361 815-9641 cell > 361 993-5127 HM -- Lorn H. 'Feathers' Olsen, MAA, DynaComm, Corp. 248-345-0500, mailto:lorn@dynacomm.ws LNC2, O-320-D1F, 1,000 hrs, N31161, Y47, SE Michigan