As was pointed out earlier, the problem is not the FAA regulations, but the FCC regulations.
Mark AD5SS (and a handful of commercial FCC licenses) On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:42 PM, glen worstell <[email protected]> wrote: > Message: 29 > Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:42:15 -0500 > From: "James Meade" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: [Elecraft] KX3 Avionics Receive > Message-ID: <op.wul28pfriyp58p@tower> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; > delsp=yes > ... > > 1. As I posted in the OP, I have an experimental aircraft and therefore > do not need a TSO'd radio, per FAR 91.205. This position is well > documented in experimental aircraft and avionics circles so I won't repeat > it all here, just note it for the benefit of those more familiar with > standard certificated airplanes which do have to meet FAR 91.205. I > would, of course, be sure the radio complied with FCC rules per CFR Title > 47 Part 87, which talks to airplane stations, especially 87.131. > > --------------------------------- > > mars frequencies are usually close to ham band edges. > > aircraft transceiver frequencies are not even close (118-136 MHz). > > the kx3 would require extensive mods to work on those frequencies. Not > worth the effort, imho. > > It might be feasible to build a transverter, tho. > > BTW, for certified aircraft it would be legal to use an non-tso'd radio > for emergency communications only. If your backup radio is intended for > use only when your main radio craps out you may feel OK doing that, but > I'd remove the radio during annual inspections. > > Glen, KG0T ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
