PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom?

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

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.

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: One's Too Many [mailto Posted At: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:37 PM
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.

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.

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

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.

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

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!

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