PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom?

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

On Aug 3, 11:00 pm, One's Too Many wrote:

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 hope they don't go tell you the intercom must also be STC'ed for
your aircraft before they allow it or to go hire a DER to create
approved data or to take it to one of those big city multi-million
dollar avionics shops to get installed. Up here in northern Texas, an
intercom installation is also considered a major alteration. My AP
says they claim it modifies the basic design of the comm radio system.
Must be a Texas thing.

OTOH, the Air Gizmo dock for a Garmin x96 is deemed a minor alteration
in this region and the GPS and dock can be installed for VFR-only
under reference of AC-20-138a with only a logbook entry, even when
hooked up to the ship's power and an external antenna mounted. Go
figure.

-----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

"RST Engineering" wrote in message
...
Seems like some FSDO is always on a rampage...of COURSE an intercom is a
minor alteration. Several FAA publications are quite explicit on what is
major and what is minor, and a publication out of Ok City trumps the
Houston FSDO. Your FSDO folks have their panties in a wad and are way off
base.

As a matter of fact, there is nothing in a part 91 aircraft that HAS to be
TSOd, including transponders, altitude encoders, and ELTs. Read the
requirements. They have to MEET the TSO spec, but they don't have to be
themselves TSOd.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



seems the Houston FSDO has been on a rampage against
mechanics installing non-TSO'ed intercoms in spamcans and calling it a
minor alteration.





Can you toss me som links on the non TSO items for part 91 thanks.

usenet mail at international ferry flights dot com will get to me

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.

I recall a review of panel mount intercoms some time in the past in Aviation
Consumer. I have a PS-6000, with Lightspeed 30-3G headsets. The XM satellite
radio sounds great with this combination, including even classical music,
with a high dynamic range.

One's,

Is it really worth $200 more than the comparable Flightcom 403?


It's worth much more than that, because the 403 simply isn't
comparable. Have you ever had trouble connecting different headsets
from different brands to the same intercom? You'll see that with the
403, but you won't with a PSE unit. Have you ever noticed how ALL
connected headset microphones open when one person speaks and the vox
circuit opens? All the noise from all those mics gets transmitted into
the intercom system as a consequence. That's what happens with a 403,
but not with a PSE. I could go on...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Aug 7, 3:38 am, Thomas Borchert
wrote:
One's,

Is it really worth $200 more than the comparable Flightcom 403?

It's worth much more than that, because the 403 simply isn't
comparable. Have you ever had trouble connecting different headsets
from different brands to the same intercom? You'll see that with the
403, but you won't with a PSE unit. Have you ever noticed how ALL
connected headset microphones open when one person speaks and the vox
circuit opens? All the noise from all those mics gets transmitted into
the intercom system as a consequence. That's what happens with a 403,
but not with a PSE. I could go on...

We finished up the installation late last night, tested it in the
hangar and played music from the iPod through it and it does sound
very, very good with my Denali headsets. The PSE was a wise choice
indeed. My A&P/IA hopes to have all his paperwork completed sometime
tomorrow but I won't have time to actually flight test the new
intercom until the weekend.