A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 14th 07, 04:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



Tri-Pacer wrote:

FSDO is not in the loop anymore as all field approvals go right to OKC
now.



Really ???? What FSDO do you work under?


The administrative policy has changed. This is really just an extension
of the changes that took place a few years ago when everybody was
whining about how hard it was to get field approvals.



  #22  
Old January 14th 07, 04:44 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mike Granby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga


Newps wrote:

Yes, last year. As of the last few weeks local FSDO's
are out of the loop. All 337's go to OKC now and are
not reviewed for airworthiness.


Can you provide a citation for this, pls? It seems odd that the OP is
still having discussions with avionics shop about getting field
approvals when the procedure has changed. They obviously don't know
about it...

  #23  
Old January 14th 07, 04:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



Tri-Pacer wrote:



Really ???? What FSDO do you work under?



Here's some discussion of this subject from the Beech Owners email list.



BB, I believe it has *always* been at the IA's discretion to make
major alterations.

The rub is that major alterations require approved data. The IA
signature on a Form 337 means that the IA has inspected the
alteration and found that it conforms with the approved data
referenced in the Form 337. The IA has no authority to approve the
data -- only an FAA employee or DER can do that.

I suspect what's going on here is that FSDO folks are getting out of
the data approval business, and that all alterations for which
approved data does not already exist (e.g., STC) will require hiring
a DER to approve the data. Essentially, approval of data will become
something you pay for instead of getting free. (Nothing's free, but
you know what I mean.)

IMHO the loss of the FSDO proofreading function for Form 337s is no
loss at all. Hopefully IA's are smart enough to figure out how to
fill out a Form 337 properly without help from the FAA. (Somehow, I
don't think safety is improved materially when a FSDO inspector kicks
back a Form 337 for a sun visor installation because it doesn't have
Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness in the proper 18-item format.)

Maybe having to hire a DER for what amounts to a field approval is
not such a bad idea. The DER will charge a fee for his services, but
at least it won't be a guaranteed "no" (which is pretty much what
most FSDOs have been doing on field approval requests in recent years).

In my view, the more maintenance- and certification-related functions
that can be transferred from FAA to the private sector (designees,
etc.), the better. They'll cost money, but at least they'll get done.

(No, I'm not in favor of privatizing ATC. g)

At 06:39 PM 1/7/2007, Bob wrote:

Since the FSDO has been eliminated, could it then be construed as
at the signatory IA's discretion to make major alterations?

BB:


----- Original Message ----- From: "carmine" carminefp at comcast.net
To: "Beech-Owners at Beechcraft. Org" beech-owners at beechcraft.org
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 5:48 PM
Subject: B: 337


Attended an IA seminar this weekend here in the Seattle area and the
FSDO people made it very clear that 337's go toOklahoma and not to
them. They will accept those 337's that have a cover letter asking
if it's correct and acceptable. They said that Oklahoma will not be
critiquing them at all. Mentioned in the past they found errors in
25 to 50 percent of those submitted locally in any given year.




Cy, where did you get that impression? The change to Part 43
Appendix B which calls for Form 337s to be sent directly to OKC
instead of to the local FSDO makes no distinction between 337s for
major repairs and major alterations. All 337s are to be sent
directly to OKC after signed off by the inspecting IA.

As always, the IA may only sign the 337 if it references approved
data. If the data is not approved per STC or something similar,
approval of the data must be secured (from the FAA or a DER) *before*
the IA signs the 337.

Once the IA signs the 337, it now gets submitted directly to
OKC. The FAA recently unveiled a new system whereby 337s may be
filled out online and submitted electronically to OKC, which sounds
to me like a huge improvement (at least in terms of 337s getting lost
in the system and never showing up in the aircraft records at OKC).

At 08:08 PM 1/7/2007, cgalley wrote:
I believe these 337s are only for repairs not alterations.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob" parair at ca.rr.com
To: beech-owners at beechcraft.org
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:39 PM
Subject: B: 337



Since the FSDO has been eliminated, could it then be construed as at the
signatory IA's discretion to make major alterations?





Cy, an IA has always been able to approve a major alteration. He has
never been able to approve the data for a major alteration -- only an
FAA employee or DER can do that. Approval of data by the FAA or a
DER must be done BEFORE the IA signs off the 337, not after. I think
we have a terminology problem here. A major repair or major
alteration requires two approvals -- approval of the data and
approval of the work. An IA has never been permitted to do the
former, and has always been permitted to do the latter. There is no
change in that regard. The only purpose for the FSDO to look at a
Form 337 *after* the IA signs it (approving the work) is for
proofreading purposes, not approval purposes. Under the new rule,
FSDOs are getting out of the proofreading business. --Mike

At 08:35 PM 1/7/2007, cgalley wrote:
But the IA can't approve an alteration. Maybe the person that said

you have
to "buy" an alteration thru a DER or DAR is right.









  #24  
Old January 14th 07, 04:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mike Granby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga


BB, I believe it has *always* been at the IA's discretion
to make major alterations. The rub is that major alterations
require approved data.


Well, quite. If the alteration has approved data (eg. an STC) then the
IA can sign the 337, and he then sends it straight to OK City. But if
he merely has acceptable data, the most common route open to him is a
Field Approval whereby he sends that data with a 337 to the FSDO, and
gets them to turn that into approved data by stamping it and signing
the magic box. The IA can then sign the form after completion, and send
it off to OK City for filing. But that still means that the FSDO is
involved in the Field Approval process. Do you still assert the Field
Approvals do not involve a FSDO and go straight to OK City???

  #25  
Old January 14th 07, 05:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



Mike Granby wrote:

Newps wrote:


Yes, last year. As of the last few weeks local FSDO's
are out of the loop. All 337's go to OKC now and are
not reviewed for airworthiness.



Can you provide a citation for this, pls? It seems odd that the OP is
still having discussions with avionics shop about getting field
approvals when the procedure has changed. They obviously don't know
about it...


Well hey, it's the Government. The memo probably hasn't made it all
around the country yet.
  #26  
Old January 14th 07, 05:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



Mike Granby wrote:

BB, I believe it has *always* been at the IA's discretion
to make major alterations. The rub is that major alterations
require approved data.



Well, quite. If the alteration has approved data (eg. an STC) then the
IA can sign the 337, and he then sends it straight to OK City. But if
he merely has acceptable data, the most common route open to him is a
Field Approval whereby he sends that data with a 337 to the FSDO, and
gets them to turn that into approved data by stamping it and signing
the magic box. The IA can then sign the form after completion, and send
it off to OK City for filing. But that still means that the FSDO is
involved in the Field Approval process. Do you still assert the Field
Approvals do not involve a FSDO and go straight to OK City???


Yes, the FSDO's are being directed not to approve data unless it's
something that's pretty simple, stuff that is probably a minor
alteration in the first place. What they really seem to be saying is we
don't have the expertise in the field anymore so send it to our
engineers in OKC or get your own DER. Which I think in the end is good.
This should create a demand for DER's which will mean more of them and
known stable prices.
  #27  
Old January 14th 07, 02:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mike Spera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Airgizmo Install - Question to the IAs

Folks,

Help me understand the most basic alteration/modification/addition. This
"simple" category. Some conclude this device fits that category.

If my IA determines that screwing a bit of plastic onto the instrument
panel (using the existing mounting rails with approved hardware)
constitutes nothing more than a minor alteration, can he simply make a
logbook entry and sign it off? What other paperwork must he execute, if any?

Once done, what happens wan an FAA critter with an attitude problem at
some remote airport where I am not based comes along, peeps in the
window and says "where is your paperwork for this thing"? I don't carry
my logbooks. What do the regs say I have to do (produce) right there and
then? Providing I follow the rules (which you just told me), what can
the FAA person do according to the regs?

Where possible, please point me to the chapter and verse. Where
impossible, please let me know why you reached a conclusion where the
regs are nonexistent or vague.

Thanks,
Mike
  #28  
Old January 14th 07, 03:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Jay Honeck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,573
Default Airgizmo Install - Question to the IAs

If my IA determines that screwing a bit of plastic onto the instrument
panel (using the existing mounting rails with approved hardware)
constitutes nothing more than a minor alteration, can he simply make a
logbook entry and sign it off? What other paperwork must he execute, if any?


Mike, I can't quote you chapter and verse -- but I know a guy who
*can*. Call Tony, at McCandless Aviation in Waterloo, Iowa. He's the
head of their avionics shop, and he did my installation with a logbook
entry. His number is 319-232-1234

Once done, what happens wan an FAA critter with an attitude problem at
some remote airport where I am not based comes along, peeps in the
window and says "where is your paperwork for this thing"?


I've only been ramp-checked once, but the FAA dude was only concerned
about your paperwork (pilot certificate, medical) and the aircraft's
basic paperwork (airworthiness cert, etc.). At no time did the guy
even look at the panel, other than when he looked in the plane at me
and Mary.

I have a hard time imagining a situation where an inspector starts
asking for STC and field approval paperwork on stuff like the AirGizmo.
Hell, it would take me three hours just to show him the paperwork on
all the other mods on my plane. (Let's see, wing tips, wing fillets,
landing lights, flap gaps, aileron gaps, fancy pants...shoot, I'm up to
three hours already!)

IMO, you'd have to really pee in someone's Wheaties to get ramp checked
THAT hard.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

  #29  
Old January 14th 07, 05:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Airgizmo Install - Question to the IAs



Mike Spera wrote:


If my IA determines that screwing a bit of plastic onto the instrument
panel (using the existing mounting rails with approved hardware)
constitutes nothing more than a minor alteration, can he simply make a
logbook entry and sign it off?



That is, by definition, a minor alteration. And that is all that is
required for a minor alteration.


What other paperwork must he execute, if
any?


None.




Once done, what happens wan an FAA critter with an attitude problem at
some remote airport where I am not based comes along, peeps in the
window and says "where is your paperwork for this thing"?


Nothing happens. If he asks tell them your mechanic signed it off as a
minor alteration. If he wants to look at the loogbooks the regs say
they have to contact you and you two make an appointment and he can look
at the logs. I would think that if you have an electronic version, I
scan all mine into PDF's, you could just email them over there.



I don't carry
my logbooks. What do the regs say I have to do (produce) right there and
then?



Nuthin', relating to the maintenence. For a ramp check you have to have
the AROW, just what you learned to be a private pilot.



Providing I follow the rules (which you just told me), what can
the FAA person do according to the regs?




See above. And under no circumstances can he "ground" your plane. He
can hang a tag on there stating he thinks something isn't airworthy.
The most famous case is the FSDO inspector who did that on a Mooney with
a Q Tip prop. But you determine if the plane is airworthy. Your
mechanic is the one who gets to decide if the Air Gizmo is a minor
alteration not the FAA. He may ask the FAA for guidance but when you
read the mechanics bible not in a million years is the Gizmo a major
alteration. Any IA who says so should lose his IA priveleges.
  #30  
Old January 14th 07, 06:01 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Airgizmo Install - Question to the IAs



Jay Honeck wrote:



I've only been ramp-checked once, but the FAA dude was only concerned
about your paperwork (pilot certificate, medical) and the aircraft's
basic paperwork (airworthiness cert, etc.). At no time did the guy
even look at the panel, other than when he looked in the plane at me
and Mary.



Along those lines find a time when the FAA is running the PACE program.
This is where your local FSDO shows up at your airport and you can
bring your plane and logs to them for them to inspect and they will tell
you if they find anything they consider unairworthy or maybe a little
suspicious. They will also inspect the plane and tell you what they
think and you can also have the FSDO fly with you for an hour or so,
basically give you a mini checkride. It's all nonadversarial. You can
ignore what they say and fly away if you want but it's also a way to
meet these people and find out they're just regular people. I did all
that and pointed out all the stuff on my plane that comes up from time
to time in these discussions.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Garmin 496-XM Radio-PS Engineering Intercom Follow up... Jay Honeck Owning 25 December 9th 06 01:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.