Legal Radio Installation

Can an AP/IA person legally install and sign off a VFR Nav/Comm radio
in a certified aircraft, given that he has all the needed technical
knowledge needed to do this, or is a 'certified radio shop' required
somewhere in the paperwork process? How about an IFR installation?
(not counting the transponder/encoder and altimeter cert. requrements)

"xeM" wrote in message
...
Can an AP/IA person legally install and sign off a VFR Nav/Comm radio
in a certified aircraft, given that he has all the needed technical
knowledge needed to do this, or is a 'certified radio shop' required
somewhere in the paperwork process?

A&P/IA is all you need.

How about an IFR installation?

An IFR GPS requires a radio shop.

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:50:43 -0600, "Newps"
wrote:


"xeM" wrote in message
.. .
Can an AP/IA person legally install and sign off a VFR Nav/Comm radio
in a certified aircraft, given that he has all the needed technical
knowledge needed to do this, or is a 'certified radio shop' required
somewhere in the paperwork process?

A&P/IA is all you need.

How about an IFR installation?

An IFR GPS requires a radio shop.



Would the new AC 20-138a change that requirement now? See
http://www.aea.net/aeatodayDetail.asp?ID=256

Gene Kearns wrote:
:Would the new AC 20-138a change that requirement now? See
:http://www.aea.net/aeatodayDetail.asp?ID=256
:

: My understanding is.... it would.... as long as the installation was
: not interfaced with another unit....

: Since GPS is no longer consider a "new technology" it's installation
: is equivalent to old tech, like a radio...

..... unless you are under the jurisdiction of at least the Richmond FSDO. I'm working
with my A&P/IA on installing a KLX-135 VFR GPS/COMM and the guy at the FSDO insists
that it's still a major alteration. Funny thing is that apparently, the act of
installing a placard saying "VFR use only" enters a whole new set of regulations
(think field approval along with major alteration) than utilizing the on-screen
message that reads "VFR use only." I don't understand it, but am rapidly concluding
that rational thought has nothing to do with it.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[rant on]

What in the hell is WRONG with you people? How in the hell did a FSDO get
involved with a logbook installation?

I'll tell you how it happened. Either the owner or the IA was stupid enough to
ask the FSDO their opinion. After that, you are in the paperwork mill, and woe
betide you. You will never exit the other end unscathed.

Just SHUT YOUR MOUTH, do a LOGBOOK ENTRY, and both you and the Feds are going to
be mightily happy.

[rant off]

Jim





shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

-.... unless you are under the jurisdiction of at least the Richmond FSDO. I'm
working
-with my A&P/IA on installing a KLX-135 VFR GPS/COMM and the guy at the FSDO
insists
-that it's still a major alteration.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...

The best way to find out about the rationality of it all is to have
the ASI to (1) show you in the regs where it says it is a major
alteration and (2) explain to you what the purpose of AC 20-138A is
and what it means.

Oh no. Never ask an FAA person to explain the regs -- you most definitely
won't like the answer. Do your own homework.

In all my dealings with certifications, one thing is very clear: It is not
the inspector's or ACO's job to tell you how to comply with the regulations.
Their job is to determine whether you have presented proper evidence to show
compliance. It is your job to show that you are complying with the regs.

The only break you get is the AC. It describes "a means, but not the only
means of showing compliance..." Read it. Understand it. Follow it.
Document everything the way it says to. If you follow it, and submit the
documentation to prove you did, they won't argue with you. There may be
other ways to show compliance; but if you try them, you're on your own. The
AC is the path of least resistance.

Gerry

On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:41:44 -0700, Jim Weir wrote:

[rant on]

What in the hell is WRONG with you people? How in the hell did a FSDO get
involved with a logbook installation?

I'll tell you how it happened. Either the owner or the IA was stupid enough to
ask the FSDO their opinion. After that, you are in the paperwork mill, and woe
betide you. You will never exit the other end unscathed.

Just SHUT YOUR MOUTH, do a LOGBOOK ENTRY, and both you and the Feds are going to
be mightily happy.

[rant off]

Jim


I agree Jim,

The way I read AC-20-138a is:
1. Read and understand AC-20-138a
2. Install / Test GPS per AC-20-138a
3. Logbook signoff per minor mod.
4. FSDO dosen't need to be involved.

*sigh*.... that would be my preferred course of action. Most of the IA's I've
talked with believe, "If in doubt, send it in and see what the FAA says about it." I
suspect it's instilled fear to CYA. Nobody ever said the rules make sense. I find it
tragically comic how arbitrary and capricious the rules are written and enforced.

-Cory

Jim Weir wrote:
: [rant on]

: What in the hell is WRONG with you people? How in the hell did a FSDO get
: involved with a logbook installation?

: I'll tell you how it happened. Either the owner or the IA was stupid enough to
: ask the FSDO their opinion. After that, you are in the paperwork mill, and woe
: betide you. You will never exit the other end unscathed.

: Just SHUT YOUR MOUTH, do a LOGBOOK ENTRY, and both you and the Feds are going to
: be mightily happy.

: [rant off]

: Jim




:
: shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

: -.... unless you are under the jurisdiction of at least the Richmond FSDO. I'm
: working
: -with my A&P/IA on installing a KLX-135 VFR GPS/COMM and the guy at the FSDO
: insists
: -that it's still a major alteration.

: Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
: VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
: http://www.rst-engr.com

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

Jim Weir wrote:
What in the hell is WRONG with you people? How in the hell did a FSDO get
involved with a logbook installation?
I'll tell you how it happened. Either the owner or the IA was stupid enough to
ask the FSDO their opinion. After that, you are in the paperwork mill, and woe
betide you. You will never exit the other end unscathed.
Just SHUT YOUR MOUTH, do a LOGBOOK ENTRY, and both you and the Feds are going to
be mightily happy.

Jim,

Obviously, if it was an IFR installation, he'd have to get a field
approval, because it's specifically required. However, from what I've
heard from a close friend, who owns an avionics shop, the FAA has
dictated that all FSDOs require a field approval for ALL GPS
installations, IFR or VFR. It's bull ****, but apparently, that's what
they want. Don't ask me why.

--- Jay (in Baltimore and/or Washington FSDO, depending on where I am)


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

Jay Masino wrote:

However, from what I've
heard from a close friend, who owns an avionics shop, the FAA has
dictated that all FSDOs require a field approval for ALL GPS
installations, IFR or VFR.

The Teterboro FSDO is the same way. Not sure about Allentown.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.