![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Aug 3, 5:26 pm, One's Too Many wrote:
You're preaching to the choir here... I'm not an A&P but am in whole- hearted agreement that an intercom ought be a minor alteration, but the poor A&P's are under duress of the local FSDO interpretations of the regs and there's not much the mechanics can do to challenge that without invoking the ire of their local FSDO inspectors with whom they must maintain a working relationship. Seems like the aircraft maintenance world of today has become a very, very, very different world from what it used to be back in the mid 1990's when I first began flying and a lot more common sense prevailed. Practically everything you might wish to do to an airplane has now suddenly become a major alteration no matter what, and every minor part, practically right down to even the "decorative furnishings" in the cockpit must now be PMA'ed, TSO'ed, STC'ed, or factory original parts only, and getting any kind of field approval is a crap shoot. I sure wish I could afford to build an experimental and be relatively free from such unreasonableness. It's up to the A&P to decide if the modification is a major or minor modification. Why does the FSDO even need to know anything the installation of a component? If it doesn't comply with with the requirements of Part 43 appdx A, it's a minor thing. Just log it and be on your way. We tend to over regulate ourselves by hearsay and rumors. Just because one person or group of people happen to be 337 crazy, doesn't mean that we all need to be. I think that FSDOs accept too many 337's for minor modifications/ alterations. They create monsters out of these A&P's and IA's that are 337 happy. If they bounced back 337's that were minor alterations, it would help everyone out. Good luck |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote ...
It's up to the A&P to decide if the modification is a major or minor modification. Why does the FSDO even need to know anything the installation of a component? I've found the problems not with the A&P installing, but with a new (to the plane) IA a few years later who has a cow about signing it off. Those old 337's are like a "baby blanket" for most IAs. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The mechanics around here are getting raked over the coals for not
obtaining official determination first beforehand on whether a job is a minor repair/alteration to grant them permission to log it as such. They're getting micromanaged to death. My own A&P/IA got threatened with certificate action and had to take some remedial training recently because of this. Apparently an IA's authority to make determination if a repair or alteration is major or minor has been eroded away to nothingness and whatever the regs and advisory circulars say has now been trumped by local inspectors' own interpretation instead. I really don't even want to get started into the "unapproved parts" issue since lately it seems like even obvious standard parts like mil-spec AN nuts and bolts are suddenly becoming in danger of being declared unapproved if you can't prove you bought them them from a Cessna/Beech/whatever parts dealer. But, in the case of the Flightcom intercom I originally wanted, since it is not PMA'd, TSO'd or STC'd therefore it is declared to be an "unapproved part" and hence illegal to install on a certificated airplane as an aftermarket upgrade. I guess the extra $200 the PSE intercom costs must be worth it since it should be considered the hassle-avoidance fee. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
-----Original Message-----
From: One's Too Many [mailto ![]() Posted To: rec.aviation.owning Conversation: PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom? Subject: Intercoms & FSDOs .... them them from a Cessna/Beech/whatever parts dealer. But, in the case of the Flightcom intercom I originally wanted, since it is not PMA'd, TSO'd or STC'd therefore it is declared to be an "unapproved part" and hence illegal to install on a certificated airplane as an aftermarket upgrade. I guess the extra $200 the PSE intercom costs must be worth it since it should be considered the hassle-avoidance fee. Since the local FSDO's attitude will directly impact the manufacturers like Flightcom, why aren't those manufacturers involved in this issue? It shouldn't be up to the AI or AP to straighten out FSDO because they will suffer any retribution, but the manufacturers should be able to go to OKC and get some higher level directives issued shouldn't they? Sure, paying $200 extra is a small issue for the end user, but losing the entire sale has much more impact on the manufacturer. Follow the money... Kindest regards, Jim Carter Politicians fear most an armed, educated electorate. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
They sell their panel mount intercoms to the experimental market and
anyone who wants to put one in a certified plane sorts out the FAA issues on their own. Here's a thread from over on the Piperowner's forum from someone who went thru a similar adventure. http://forums.piperowner.org/read/2/58522/58522/quote=1 BTW, is anyone else going to answer the poor fellow's original questions about the audio and music quality of a PS-Engineering PM3000? I'm kinda curious too because I just ordered one of these myself, along with a new ELT and a bunch of other stuff from Spruce since my Cherokee has just come up for annual and I'm tired of cables strung all over the floor from a portable intercom and I want to tidy up the interior with some upgrades. I selected the PM3000 over the Flightcom 403 because I'm already familiar with the FC 403 having installed a couple of these myself in friends' RV's I helped build, and they're ok I guess, but their sound quality doesn't exactly knock my socks off. I've heard music thru a PS-Engineering full audio panel in a friend's Glasair-III and it sounded great. I guess you get what you pay for. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
CheckerBird wrote:
/snip/ BTW, is anyone else going to answer the poor fellow's original questions about the audio and music quality of a PS-Engineering PM3000? /snip/ As far as intercom operation goes, the biggest advantage the PS has over the Flightcomm is the fact that the MIC circuits are individual to each station, and that *only* the MIC that is in use will break squelch. The other station's MICS remain off-line. In the Flightcomm, when one person speaks, *all* the MICS go hot, and thus you hear a lot of background noise in the audio. The Flightcomm has been the budget standard intercom for many years, and they do a competent, reliable job of it. The PS, however, is also very well built, and a bit more refined. Happy Flying! Scott Skylane |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thanks Scott, I kinda gleaned that info about the separate squelch
circuits from the PS web site. The common squelch circuit in cheaper intercoms really isn't that big of a deal WRT noise pickup in my experience however. The karaoke mode push-knob switchable music muting feature of the PM3000 is one of the main things that attracted me to this intercom. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
One's Too Many wrote:
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. It is the way it works. There is no requirement for an A&P to seek approval/permission for any modification if in his/her estimation it is minor in nature. As an A&P I'll sign off anything I believe is a minor alteration without anybodies approval. If it's a major alteration, then a FSDO approval is necessary and an IA needs to validate the alteration was done in accordance with the data approved. 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 Just because something is TSO'd doesn't mean that it can be installed every aircraft. TSO's is nothing more than paperwork way to try to generate quality in a product. It's a label like the "UL" label on kitchen appliances. I could probably get a window AC unit TSO'd but it doesn't mean that you can install it in your airplane. It means that it passes what ever TSO standard that it was manufactured to. Take a look at part 43 appendix A, it's pretty interesting. Cheers! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The Good, the Bad, the Ugly: AirGizmo PIREP, PS Engineering CD/Intercom woes, XM "service" | Jay Honeck | Owning | 34 | December 15th 06 03:02 AM |
Garmin 496-XM Radio-PS Engineering Intercom Follow up... | Jay Honeck | Owning | 25 | December 9th 06 12:26 PM |
PS Engineering | blanche cohen | Owning | 3 | January 17th 04 12:08 AM |
PS Engineering | Hankal | Owning | 0 | December 5th 03 12:25 AM |