PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom?

You seem to be determined to engender an FAA paperwork blizzard. If so,
please go for it and don't bother with these newsgroups. If you have a
reasonable A&P who installs it and a reasonable IA who does your annuals,
the FSDO will never have a clue as to what is going on.

On the other hand, you seem to want to tweak the FSDOs nose and get them
into the "approval" process where it is not necessary. Your call, and your
airplane.

Most of us out in the unwashed backwater airports don't give a good god damn
about the FSDO, just about keeping our airplanes airworthy to the highest
standards. Again, your call, and don't give me the crap about the FSDO
pulling an inspection on you out of the blue.

Jim


--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"One's Too Many" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 3, 6:27 pm, " wrote:

It's up to the A&P to decide if the modification is a major or minor
modification.

I thought that was the way it is supposed to work too, as reading the
regs seems to overtly state this. But in actual practice the A&P is
now being basically required to seek permission from above whether he
can declare something to be minor or not... that he is expected to
assume everything is major unless the FSDO grants him permission to
declare it minor after they review the details themselves.


If they bounced back 337's that were minor alterations, it would help
everyone out.

I thought they were supposed to do exactly just that too -- to
"decline" the 337 with a note stating that the job is minor and to log
it as such. But that's not what's been happening in real life.


Good luck

Thanks, I'll probably need it, but my IA did say that the 337 for the
PSE intercom should slide right thru the bureaucracy like greased
butter since a TSO'd part is already an approved part and its
installation manual also constitutes "approved data" for the 337

On Aug 3, 11:00 pm, One's Too Many wrote:

Thanks, I'll probably need it, but my IA did say that the 337 for the
PSE intercom should slide right thru the bureaucracy like greased
butter since a TSO'd part is already an approved part and its
installation manual also constitutes "approved data" for the 337

Just hope they don't go tell you the intercom must also be STC'ed for
your aircraft before they allow it or to go hire a DER to create
approved data or to take it to one of those big city multi-million
dollar avionics shops to get installed. Up here in northern Texas, an
intercom installation is also considered a major alteration. My AP
says they claim it modifies the basic design of the comm radio system.
Must be a Texas thing.

OTOH, the Air Gizmo dock for a Garmin x96 is deemed a minor alteration
in this region and the GPS and dock can be installed for VFR-only
under reference of AC-20-138a with only a logbook entry, even when
hooked up to the ship's power and an external antenna mounted. Go
figure.

On Aug 3, 4:50 pm, "RST Engineering" wrote:
Seems like some FSDO is always on a rampage...of COURSE an intercom is a
minor alteration. Several FAA publications are quite explicit on what is
major and what is minor, and a publication out of Ok City trumps the Houston
FSDO. Your FSDO folks have their panties in a wad and are way off base.

As a matter of fact, there is nothing in a part 91 aircraft that HAS to be
TSOd, including transponders, altitude encoders, and ELTs. Read the
requirements. They have to MEET the TSO spec, but they don't have to be
themselves TSOd.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

seems the Houston FSDO has been on a rampage against

mechanics installing non-TSO'ed intercoms in spamcans and calling it a
minor alteration.


Their reply about the TSO, "how can you prove that the device/
appliance meets the specification? Show me the data.".

They're making up their own rules where I am.

I've asked OKC regulation questions, but they bounce it back to me and
tell me to ask my local FSDO. How do you get a legitimate
interpretation on a regulation if you can't get past your local
office? Where's Bill O'Brien when you need him?


I'd love to get into it in a public forum, but I'm in the process of
fighting a battle with them which is obvious that they're clearly
wrong, but won't admit it.
And, the Internet has ears and I'm afraid of what they would put me
through if they found out I was bashing them.

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Seems like some FSDO is always on a rampage...of COURSE an intercom is a
minor alteration. Several FAA publications are quite explicit on what is
major and what is minor, and a publication out of Ok City trumps the
Houston FSDO. Your FSDO folks have their panties in a wad and are way off
base.

As a matter of fact, there is nothing in a part 91 aircraft that HAS to be
TSOd, including transponders, altitude encoders, and ELTs. Read the
requirements. They have to MEET the TSO spec, but they don't have to be
themselves TSOd.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



seems the Houston FSDO has been on a rampage against
mechanics installing non-TSO'ed intercoms in spamcans and calling it a
minor alteration.





Can you toss me som links on the non TSO items for part 91 thanks.

usenet mail at international ferry flights dot com will get to me