Page 1 of 1

EC device approval.

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:24 pm
by FELX
Having just bought a Skyguard2 I thought I should just check on what formalities there were for using it. Leaflet TL 3.03 is the place to find the answer I assume. There are many pages covering what has to be done but as far as I can tell the little sentence

Devices that are ‘carry on equipment’ do not need any particular approval.

tucked away at the end of a paragraph near the end of the document is the key one. If this is so then Skyguard2 doesn't need any formal approval/testing.
Have I go this right?
Terry

Re: EC device approval.

Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:20 pm
by Ian Melville
That's a new one to me. I can find SkyGuard roofing and and Area Defence System, and a lot in between. Can you provide a link?

Or did you mean SkyEcho 2?

Re: EC device approval.

Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:14 pm
by FELX
Hi Ian,
Many thanks - yes - of course SkyEcho2. obviously a senior moment and I clearly didn't use a check list.
What with Sky demon and SkyEcho we don't need another 'sky'!
Question still stands 'though.
Regards,
Terry

Re: EC device approval.

Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2021 7:37 am
by Ian Melville
I don't have a SE2 myself. As a contained unit I would think that uAvionics have sorted out any approvals required under CAP 1391.

Re: EC device approval.

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:15 am
by tnowak
Terry,

The SE2 is designed to be play and go!
You need to find a good location to mount the device so it meets SE2's requirements of vertically mounted and with an unobstructed "view" forward.

Tony

Re: EC device approval.

Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:29 pm
by FELX
Dear Ian and tnowak,
Thanks for the reponses.
Yes Skyecho2 is fully approved as far as CAP 1391 etc and of course we can ADSB out even with a non-squitter transponder.
My posting was to confirm that there were no formalities when using it as far as the LAA is concerned. 'Wired in' EC devices need some testing and paperwork - see TL 3.03 but is seems on the basis of that short sentence embedded in that document that a 'carry on' such as SE2 doesn't need anything.
It would seem to be clear - but I was just seeking confirmation!
Thanks,
Terry