Leaderboard

Short summary: A software kludge to hide a hardware defect.

Which makes it sound like it is not actually TSO'd (although I can't tell for sure from this info). It sounds like they used the TSO list of requirements, and did drop tests etc. to satisfy Australian requirements. That could be reassuring to an Australian customer. BUT... the gear wasn't actually entered into the US TSO system. Nor is there any sign that an Australian part 103.18 certification is automatically accepted as equivalent to a TSO by the US. Then you get into the issue, "But what if one is talking about a PA rig that was a license built copy of a US TSO'd Rigging Innovations rig?" That's certainly worth something to a jumper, but if it isn't actually produced in a TSO approved production facility, then it still can't count as having a TSO even if the design is TSO'd. (As a similar example, for one Canadian rig that was TSO'd, it was done through Transport Canada according to bilateral agreements with the FAA, so the FAA accepts it. So it has a real FAA TSO. Then the production plans and facility were approved & inspected so that it was run on a TSO approved production line. Years later, the company owner gave up the formal TSO certification as he wasn't selling many to the US anyway, so it wasn't worth the money to pay for the inspections the Canadian authorities were doing for the production line. A jumper can be reassured that the design actually went through all TSO tests which were accepted by the US, even if a current production rig doesn't actually have a TSO. An earlier rig could be jumped by a US resident, but the current ones can't.) Correct me if I'm wrong about TSO'd production lines -- I'm a bit hazy on that aspect and what formal terminology applies.

There was at the first too but he got shot.

Well, since that is always the answer given following a mass shooting, shouldn’t we be arming the Muslims in our country?