Mounting 396

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

My example was in reference to cyanide gas generated by some
upholstery materials when burnt, not Air Gizmo's products
specifically. That was remedied by the FAA a while back, IIRC.

Yes, for anything after the rule was written.
It doesn't apply to anything produced before the rule went into effect.

Larry Dighera wrote:


Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required.


That's not Air Gizmo's call. That is your mechanics.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:31:27 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:


Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required.


That's not Air Gizmo's call. That is your mechanics.

I understand what you're saying; the A&P/IA puts his certificate on
the line. But given the fact that the OP wasn't able to locate one
who would install the Air Gizmo, do you see what I'm saying?

"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

Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required. On what are
you basing your "installation is properly logged" conclusion, the word
of a motel operator?

No, on the word of a hotel operator who HAS HAD THE AIR GIZMO LEGALLY
INSTALLED AND SIGNED OFF IN THE PANEL OF HIS CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT.
(Loud and clear enough for you?)

Have you had an AirGizmo installed, Larry? If not, your opinion here
means precisely squat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56933
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:31:27 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:


Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required.


That's not Air Gizmo's call. That is your mechanics.


I understand what you're saying; the A&P/IA puts his certificate on
the line. But given the fact that the OP wasn't able to locate one
who would install the Air Gizmo, do you see what I'm saying?


What's happening is a larger issue. Several years ago the FAA came out
and said basically no more field approvals. Everybody groaned. But few
read the fine print. What the FAA is doing is going back to the way the
rules were intended to be interpreted. This is a good thing. They are
intended to be interpreted by the mechanics. What happened over the
years is the mechanics just got used to calling mother FAA for damn near
everything. The FAA is not where the expertise is, it resides with the
mechanics in the field. The FAA realized this and shifted the
responsibility back where it belongs, with the mechanics. When Air
Gizmo writes that you need a 337 that's just CYA. They have zero say in
the matter. Just like some peoples desire to buy parts with a yellow
tag. A yellow tag means exactly nothing. Only the mechanic installing
the part is the one who can vouch for its airworthiness and he alone
bears that responsibility. So mechanincs have been bitching for years
how restrictive the FAA has been, which is entirely a situation of their
own making and now the FAA has in reality turned them loose. Basically
said read the damn rule book. Now grow some balls and get off our back.

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:09:00 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:31:27 -0600, Newps wrote
in :



Larry Dighera wrote:


Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required.


That's not Air Gizmo's call. That is your mechanics.


I understand what you're saying; the A&P/IA puts his certificate on
the line. But given the fact that the OP wasn't able to locate one
who would install the Air Gizmo, do you see what I'm saying?


What's happening is a larger issue. Several years ago the FAA came out
and said basically no more field approvals. Everybody groaned. But few
read the fine print. What the FAA is doing is going back to the way the
rules were intended to be interpreted. This is a good thing. They are
intended to be interpreted by the mechanics. What happened over the
years is the mechanics just got used to calling mother FAA for damn near
everything. The FAA is not where the expertise is, it resides with the
mechanics in the field. The FAA realized this and shifted the
responsibility back where it belongs, with the mechanics. When Air
Gizmo writes that you need a 337 that's just CYA. They have zero say in
the matter. Just like some peoples desire to buy parts with a yellow
tag. A yellow tag means exactly nothing. Only the mechanic installing
the part is the one who can vouch for its airworthiness and he alone
bears that responsibility. So mechanincs have been bitching for years
how restrictive the FAA has been, which is entirely a situation of their
own making and now the FAA has in reality turned them loose. Basically
said read the damn rule book. Now grow some balls and get off our back.

That's reasonable. Hence the inconsistency among Air Gizmo
installers. What about the STC issue?

"Jay Honeck" wrote

Have you had an AirGizmo installed, Larry? If not, your opinion here
means precisely squat.

Oh, not just then, Jay.

Larry's word ALWAYS means precisely squat! g
--
Jim in NC

Larry's word ALWAYS means precisely squat! g

Nonsense. Larry made a salient point, once. I don't remember what it
was, but he was agreeing with something I had posted...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Larry Dighera wrote:


What's happening is a larger issue. Several years ago the FAA came out
and said basically no more field approvals. Everybody groaned. But few
read the fine print. What the FAA is doing is going back to the way the
rules were intended to be interpreted. This is a good thing. They are
intended to be interpreted by the mechanics. What happened over the
years is the mechanics just got used to calling mother FAA for damn near
everything. The FAA is not where the expertise is, it resides with the
mechanics in the field. The FAA realized this and shifted the
responsibility back where it belongs, with the mechanics. When Air
Gizmo writes that you need a 337 that's just CYA. They have zero say in
the matter. Just like some peoples desire to buy parts with a yellow
tag. A yellow tag means exactly nothing. Only the mechanic installing
the part is the one who can vouch for its airworthiness and he alone
bears that responsibility. So mechanincs have been bitching for years
how restrictive the FAA has been, which is entirely a situation of their
own making and now the FAA has in reality turned them loose. Basically
said read the damn rule book. Now grow some balls and get off our back.


That's reasonable. Hence the inconsistency among Air Gizmo
installers. What about the STC issue?

That's something Air Gizmo would need to consider. It seems silly to
get one since a cursory read of the requirements for a major
modification don't support the need for one.