Mounting 396

Jay Honeck wrote:
To make a long story short, see your local avionics shop for guidance. Each
FSDO is forming their own opinion on the Air Gizmos panel mounting
requirements and these opinions should be well-known to the avionics shops
of their respective jurisdictions.


This is quite true. We've got our 496 panel docked, and one avionics
shop (in Illinois) said we needed a 337 and a whole gob of paperwork
to install it.

Our other shop (located in Iowa) said all we needed was a signoff,
which they happily (and cheaply) did.

Different FSDOs apparently have different opinions, which means
different shops will charge HUGELY different amounts for the AirGizmo
installation. Shop around.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"


Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result. It
seems to me the airgizmo itself is a minor modification that shouldn't
be on a 337 at all, and perhaps that is why the FSDO is turning them
down. My local A&P/IA is of the opinion that it falls under the
category of decorative fixtures in the cabin, and can therefore be
signed off by the pilot/owner. I personally think that is stretching
it. Basically I want to get it installed legally enough that I won't
get a hassle about it down the line. If that takes getting a 337 then
so be it, I'll have to go somewhere else to get it installed then.

OK, forgetting about the panel dock for the moment, wiring a connector
and fuse for ship's power is an A&P sign-off isn't it? Same for
securing extension wires behind the panel with both ends left out for
access but not connected to anything on the aircraft electrical system.
If I went with a RAM mount, if it is a suction cup or clamp mount then
nothing is needed for the mount itself. If it is screwed to the
airframe, then its an A&P sign-off, right? Nothing here that goes to a
FSDO or needs a 337, I'm pretty sure. Someone jump in and correct me if
wrong.

So it seems the real issue is whether the panel dock itself requires a
337, since it seems none of the rest does if the GPS is put on a RAM
mount. Frankly, I don't see where a case could be made that the panel
dock needs a 337 when a ram mount doesn't, but then this is the FAA we
are talking about.

So the other thing was pulling out the Foster Loran. Does removal of
avionic equipment require an avionics shop, or can that be done by an A&P?

Ray Andraka wrote:


Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.


Why would they even ask FSDO in the first place? Don't they know how to
read?



It
seems to me the airgizmo itself is a minor modification that shouldn't
be on a 337 at all, and perhaps that is why the FSDO is turning them
down.


Bingo.

Newps writes:

Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at
all, and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a
result.

Why would they even ask FSDO in the first place? Don't they know
how to read?

Maybe because they are concerned about their livelihoods, should the
FSDO go after them for reading the regs differently than they do. The
usenet assurances of a pseudonymous "expert" won't serve as useful data.

- FChE

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:00:17 -0400, Ray Andraka
wrote in :

Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.

Apparently Air Gizmo's products are not intended for installation in
certified aircraft:

http://www.airgizmos.com/paneldock.asp
All products on this site are intended for use on experimental
aircraft. Installation in a production aircraft may require an
FAA field approval. Copyright © 2005-2007, AirGizmos, LLC. All
Rights Reserved.

On Aug 21, 5:33 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.

Apparently Air Gizmo's products are not intended for installation in
certified aircraft:

http://www.airgizmos.com/paneldock.asp
All products on this site are intended for use on experimental
aircraft. Installation in a production aircraft may require an
FAA field approval. Copyright © 2005-2007, AirGizmos, LLC. All
Rights Reserved.

Insurance company boilerplate. Lawyers dictating life, yet again.

Installing the AirGizmo is simplicity itself. It enhances flight
safety by removing the clutter from the cockpit, and makes the 496 a
much more usable tool. For the FAA to be doing anything but embracing
this innovative device shows precisely how stupid a government agency
can be.

But that's no surprise.

Ray, c'mon back to the Midwest, where common sense prevails. Any of a
dozen shops will install it for ya, properly, with an A&P sign-off and
logbook entry.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:



Insurance company boilerplate. Lawyers dictating life, yet again.

Installing the AirGizmo is simplicity itself. It enhances flight
safety by removing the clutter from the cockpit, and makes the 496 a
much more usable tool. For the FAA to be doing anything but embracing
this innovative device shows precisely how stupid a government agency
can be.

But that's no surprise.

Ray, c'mon back to the Midwest, where common sense prevails. Any of a
dozen shops will install it for ya, properly, with an A&P sign-off and
logbook entry.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"



Jay, I will if that's what it takes. My first preference would be to
install it myself under supervision of my A&P. I just have to make sure
he's willing to sign it off rather than having me either not log it or
sign it off as owner/pilot, neither of which is acceptable to me.

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...
Jay, I will if that's what it takes. My first preference would be to
install it myself under supervision of my A&P. I just have to make sure
he's willing to sign it off rather than having me either not log it or
sign it off as owner/pilot, neither of which is acceptable to me.

No need to go that far Ray (despite the lure of staying at Jay's hotel). I
was able to get a quote from Penn Avionics (www.pennavionics.com). Their
FSDO isn't giving them a hard time and were willing to install it. I just
haven't been able to schedule it yet. My quote is a couple of months old so
hopefully things haven't changed.

Marco

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:44:14 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote in . com:

On Aug 21, 5:33 am, Larry Dighera wrote:
Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.

Apparently Air Gizmo's products are not intended for installation in
certified aircraft:

http://www.airgizmos.com/paneldock.asp
All products on this site are intended for use on experimental
aircraft. Installation in a production aircraft may require an
FAA field approval. Copyright © 2005-2007, AirGizmos, LLC. All
Rights Reserved.

Insurance company boilerplate. Lawyers dictating life, yet again.


[...]

For the FAA to be doing anything but embracing this innovative device
shows precisely how stupid a government agency can be.

Perhaps. But how do you know that the Air Gizmo is safe for
installation in your aircraft? Have you personally (or anyone else)
thoroughly tested it, and can you state with certainly, for example,
that it will not emit voluminous poisonous smoke in the event of an
electrical fire, or any of many other possible objectionable hazards
or deficiencies?

That's why the FAA has STCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate
Supplemental Type Certificate A Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) is a document issued by the Federal Aviation Administration
approving a product (aircraft, engine, or propeller) modification.
The STC defines the product design change, states how the
modification affects the existing type design, and lists serial
number effectivity. It also identifies the certification basis
listing specific regulatory compliance for the design change.
Information contained in the certification basis is helpful for
those applicants proposing subsequent product modifications and
evaluating certification basis compatibility with other STC
modifications.


Would you be comfortable knowing, that the interior materials used in
your aircraft will emit cyanide gas in the event of a fire? Or would
you naively rely on ALL upholstery manufacturers to use safe materials
that don't do that without submitting them to FAA for certification?
Perhaps the government isn't as stupid as you think. Perhaps there
have been issues in the past that warranted the implementation of STC
policy?

Given the manufacturer's admonition:

http://www.airgizmos.com/faq.asp
Q: Can the Panel Dock be installed in a certified aircraft?
A: The Panel Dock can be installed in a certified aircraft, but
you will need an FAA field approval.

It would seem that FAA field approval* is required. I'm not an A&P,
nor FAA inspector, so I'm not qualified to provide a definitive answer
to this issue, so I'll defer to the professionals.

(But I can see where those manufacturers who do go through the expense
of STC approval might feel that they are being discriminated against
if the FAA were to permit unapproved parts to be manufactured for
installation in certified aircraft.)


*

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cer...d_approv_proc/
Field Approval Process
The field approval process is used for one serial numbered
aircraft in accordance with FAA Order 8300.10, Vol. 2, Chapter 1.

Steps of the field approval process a

The applicant proposes to repair or alter one serial numbered
aircraft.

The applicant must determine that the change is a major alteration
or repair per 14 CFR 1.1** and 14 CFR part 43, Appendix A;
The change is annotated on a FAA Form 337, Major Repair and
Alteration;

The applicant submits FAA Form 337 annotating the change with the
data package to the Flight Standards District Office;

The Flight Standards District Office may meet to assess the scope,
complexity of change in light of 14 CFR 1.1 definitions and 14 CFR
part 43, Appendix A. The Flight Standards District Office
determines that either:

The data is adequate and no field approval is required.
The Aviation Safety Inspector can sign Block 3 of FAA Form 337 to
approve the repair or alteration, or

Additional data from the applicant is needed if the original data
package is found to be inadequate, or

The data needs Aircraft Certification Office review in light of
its complexity or adequacy, or

The alteration is of a type listed in FAA Orders 8300.10 which
exceed the basic scope of a Field Approval and must be processed
as an STC.

If the Aircraft Certification Office reviews the data, they may:

Determine that the data package is acceptable as is and can be
approved as a Field Approval;

Support the field approval with engineering review, advocate
additional data or testing, assist with the flight test and
Airplane Flight Manual supplements;

Recommend that the project should be an Aircraft Certification
Office managed Supplemental Type Certification project, and should
proceed with the Supplemental Type Certification process.

The Inspector approves the repair or alteration by signing block 3
of Form 337.

Owners, operators, and persons who repair or alter aircraft, FAA
Flight Standards Inspectors, FAA Aircraft Certification Office
Engineers, and DERs need to know when a field approval is made.



** http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...14cfr1_06.html
Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft,
aircraft engine, or propeller specifications--

(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural
strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight
characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be
done by elementary operations.


Major repair means a repair:

(1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight,
balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation,
flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting
airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be
done by elementary operations.



But that's no surprise.


Neither is your shortsighted cynicism. :-)

Ray, c'mon back to the Midwest, where common sense prevails.

"where the men are all good looking, the women are all strong, and the
children are above average."

Any of a dozen shops will install it for ya, properly, with an A&P sign-off and
logbook entry.

And your insurance company will have an opportunity to deny your
claim, and you can be assured of an FAA investigation at your next
ramp check, not to mention your opportunity to stay in an
aviation-themed motel. :-)

Larry Dighera wrote:

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:44:14 -0700, Jay Honeck
wrote in . com:


On Aug 21, 5:33 am, Larry Dighera wrote:

Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.

Apparently Air Gizmo's products are not intended for installation in
certified aircraft:

http://www.airgizmos.com/paneldock.asp
All products on this site are intended for use on experimental
aircraft. Installation in a production aircraft may require an
FAA field approval. Copyright © 2005-2007, AirGizmos, LLC. All
Rights Reserved.

Insurance company boilerplate. Lawyers dictating life, yet again.



[...]


For the FAA to be doing anything but embracing this innovative device
shows precisely how stupid a government agency can be.


Perhaps. But how do you know that the Air Gizmo is safe for
installation in your aircraft? Have you personally (or anyone else)
thoroughly tested it, and can you state with certainly, for example,
that it will not emit voluminous poisonous smoke in the event of an
electrical fire, or any of many other possible objectionable hazards
or deficiencies?

That's why the FAA has STCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate
Supplemental Type Certificate A Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) is a document issued by the Federal Aviation Administration
approving a product (aircraft, engine, or propeller) modification.
The STC defines the product design change, states how the
modification affects the existing type design, and lists serial
number effectivity. It also identifies the certification basis
listing specific regulatory compliance for the design change.
Information contained in the certification basis is helpful for
those applicants proposing subsequent product modifications and
evaluating certification basis compatibility with other STC
modifications.


Would you be comfortable knowing, that the interior materials used in
your aircraft will emit cyanide gas in the event of a fire? Or would
you naively rely on ALL upholstery manufacturers to use safe materials
that don't do that without submitting them to FAA for certification?
Perhaps the government isn't as stupid as you think. Perhaps there
have been issues in the past that warranted the implementation of STC
policy?

Given the manufacturer's admonition:

http://www.airgizmos.com/faq.asp
Q: Can the Panel Dock be installed in a certified aircraft?
A: The Panel Dock can be installed in a certified aircraft, but
you will need an FAA field approval.

It would seem that FAA field approval* is required. I'm not an A&P,
nor FAA inspector, so I'm not qualified to provide a definitive answer
to this issue, so I'll defer to the professionals.

(But I can see where those manufacturers who do go through the expense
of STC approval might feel that they are being discriminated against
if the FAA were to permit unapproved parts to be manufactured for
installation in certified aircraft.)


*

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cer...d_approv_proc/
Field Approval Process
The field approval process is used for one serial numbered
aircraft in accordance with FAA Order 8300.10, Vol. 2, Chapter 1.

Steps of the field approval process a

The applicant proposes to repair or alter one serial numbered
aircraft.

The applicant must determine that the change is a major alteration
or repair per 14 CFR 1.1** and 14 CFR part 43, Appendix A;
The change is annotated on a FAA Form 337, Major Repair and
Alteration;

The applicant submits FAA Form 337 annotating the change with the
data package to the Flight Standards District Office;

The Flight Standards District Office may meet to assess the scope,
complexity of change in light of 14 CFR 1.1 definitions and 14 CFR
part 43, Appendix A. The Flight Standards District Office
determines that either:

The data is adequate and no field approval is required.
The Aviation Safety Inspector can sign Block 3 of FAA Form 337 to
approve the repair or alteration, or

Additional data from the applicant is needed if the original data
package is found to be inadequate, or

The data needs Aircraft Certification Office review in light of
its complexity or adequacy, or

The alteration is of a type listed in FAA Orders 8300.10 which
exceed the basic scope of a Field Approval and must be processed
as an STC.

If the Aircraft Certification Office reviews the data, they may:

Determine that the data package is acceptable as is and can be
approved as a Field Approval;

Support the field approval with engineering review, advocate
additional data or testing, assist with the flight test and
Airplane Flight Manual supplements;

Recommend that the project should be an Aircraft Certification
Office managed Supplemental Type Certification project, and should
proceed with the Supplemental Type Certification process.

The Inspector approves the repair or alteration by signing block 3
of Form 337.

Owners, operators, and persons who repair or alter aircraft, FAA
Flight Standards Inspectors, FAA Aircraft Certification Office
Engineers, and DERs need to know when a field approval is made.



** http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/w...14cfr1_06.html
Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft,
aircraft engine, or propeller specifications--

(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural
strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight
characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be
done by elementary operations.


Major repair means a repair:

(1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight,
balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation,
flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting
airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be
done by elementary operations.



But that's no surprise.



Neither is your shortsighted cynicism. :-)


Ray, c'mon back to the Midwest, where common sense prevails.


"where the men are all good at looking, the women smell strong, and the
children are above average brats."


Any of a dozen shops will install it for ya, properly, with an A&P sign-off and
logbook entry.


And your insurance company will have an opportunity to deny your
claim, and you can be assured of an FAA investigation at your next
ramp check, not to mention your opportunity to stay in an
aviation-themed motel. :-)


What about the ABS "Royalite" used on the production panel , or the
polyurethane seat cushion foam used in the production airplane? Those
both burn and emit toxic gasses, probably more so than the thermoplastic
used for the Air gizmo. I'd bet the air gizmo plastic is very similar
to the plastic used on the faceplates of a lot of the TSO'd radios.
Same is true for the plastic cradle that comes with the 496 for use with
the yoke mount.

I see nothing in my insurance contract that would allow them to deny a
claim because I have a panel dock in my airplane. As long as the
installation is properly logged I should be fine with the FAA and the
insurance company, especially after it gets past the first annual with
it installed.