Pic of the Airgizmo installation

I got rid of an old Narco DME to make room, and gained 5 pounds of
useful load.

You keep that close an eye on the useful on Atlas?

Total weight, no. We just load and go.

But balance-wise, it's sure nice to gain 5 pounds from up front. When
it's just the 2 of us, we like to add some extra weight in the luggage
compartment, to counter Atlas' natural nose-heaviness -- so taking 5
pounds off the "front of the teeter-totter" is a good thing.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
I spent some time with an A&P friend last night and noticed an AirGizmo on
his desk. I relayed Jay's story and he said that after dozens of phone
calls and non-committal answers he was finally able to confirm that the
Milwaukee FSDO is ok with a log book entry but Minneapolis was sticking to
a
field approval.


I wouldn't accept just a log book entry.

It's too hard to move to a different AI, with different opinions. Or it's
hard to sell the plane with some "expert" telling you that you need a 337.

The Airgizmo mount is difficult to work with as well. It is way more
convenient to have the 3/496 in your hands for most operations.

It DOES look good though.

Karl

The Airgizmo mount is difficult to work with as well. It is way more
convenient to have the 3/496 in your hands for most operations.

I don't understand what you mean by this, Karl. Can you expand a bit?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
BTW, did they do this with just a log book entry? I assume you didn't go for a field approval on this.
Correct?


I was afraid you'd ask that....

Yes, the shop in Waterloo did it with a log-book entry, with the
blessing of the Des Moines FSDO.

Why on earth would he even call FSDO?





I hate how anal some FAA people get. The AirGizmo is a piece of plastic
that allows my GPS to snap in place, holding it securely, no different
than a yoke mount (and probably safer). Why, just because it's
mounted on the panel, anyone thinks it's a "major modification" is just
beyond me. Thankfully, the Des Moine FSDO guys are apparently blessed
with superior powers of common sense.



The main problem is a mechanic who would call FSDO in the first place.
This guy is just shirking his very well laid out responsibilities. If
you read the manual that the mechanic goes by you can see why the FAA
guys make life hard. The very fact that you called means that your
install is much more than a minor alteration.

Jim Burns wrote:

I spent some time with an A&P friend last night and noticed an AirGizmo on
his desk. I relayed Jay's story and he said that after dozens of phone
calls and non-committal answers he was finally able to confirm that the
Milwaukee FSDO is ok with a log book entry but Minneapolis was sticking to a
field approval.

That is not FSDO's call to make. The mechanic is the one who decides
whether or not any particular alteration is minor or major. It is very
clearly spelled out for the mechanics.

The main problem is a mechanic who would call FSDO in the first place.
This guy is just shirking his very well laid out responsibilities. If
you read the manual that the mechanic goes by you can see why the FAA
guys make life hard. The very fact that you called means that your
install is much more than a minor alteration.

I don't blame the avionics tech (not an A&P) for calling the FSDO. The
AirGizmo is in one of those famous regulatory "gray areas" that can
drive everyone nuts, both inside and outside the FAA.

*I* think it's obviously a minor alteration, but (in fairness to those
who think otherwise) the unit DOES occupy an avionics bay, and it does
require wiring that leads to (and through) the back of the AirGizmo
unit.

The only way this really differs from a standard avionics installation
is that the 496 is designed as a "portable" unit, and the AirGizmo
allows it to be removed from the panel without tools -- a fine line,
indeed.

Thus, the call to (and blessings from) the FSDO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:

The main problem is a mechanic who would call FSDO in the first place.
This guy is just shirking his very well laid out responsibilities. If
you read the manual that the mechanic goes by you can see why the FAA
guys make life hard. The very fact that you called means that your
install is much more than a minor alteration.


I don't blame the avionics tech (not an A&P) for calling the FSDO. The
AirGizmo is in one of those famous regulatory "gray areas" that can
drive everyone nuts, both inside and outside the FAA.

There's nothing gray about it. It's so crystal clear that Mike Busch
wrote about it in detail in several publications. If you were to read
the regs the A&P goes by you would come to the same conclusion. He
quoted them in his article. Any mechanic who calls FSDO for an Air
Gizmo installation in incompetent.




*I* think it's obviously a minor alteration, but (in fairness to those
who think otherwise) the unit DOES occupy an avionics bay,


It is nothing more than a cover over a hole. The fact that the hole is
designed for a radio is irrelavant



and it does
require wiring that leads to (and through) the back of the AirGizmo
unit.

It requires no such thing. That you choose to hardwire the GPS to power
to make life convenient is your option. As for the GPS antenna you are
merely tucking those into convenient areas of the trim to make it look neat.



The only way this really differs from a standard avionics installation
is that the 496 is designed as a "portable" unit,



That is the crucial difference. The FAA deserves blame in a lot of
areas but not this one. Tell your mechanic to RTFM.

I agree 100%, but for the mechanics who are hesitant then call the FSDO for
clarity the worms de-can themselves all too easily. I wish I could find the
AC that came out a while back that discusses the issue of too many 337s and
or requests for field approvals being submitted and how if the 337 isn't
required that it will get rejected opening another can of worms. Are you
familiar with the guidance AC I'm referring to? Sorry I can't be more
precise.
Jim

Not sure about that AC. It may be the new change in procedure that
happened a few years ago where the FAA said field approvals would be few
and far between. That's what was reported. What wasn't reported was
that nothing new happened. FAA simply decided to make the mechanics do
what they should have been doing all this time. Stop calling the FSDO
every time you have to install something more complicated than a spark
plug. Read your damn manual. The FAA realizes that the expertise isn't
within the government, it is with the mechanics out in the field. So do
your job and quit asking us about stuff you should know about. Because
you won't like the answer.






Jim Burns wrote:
I agree 100%, but for the mechanics who are hesitant then call the FSDO for
clarity the worms de-can themselves all too easily. I wish I could find the
AC that came out a while back that discusses the issue of too many 337s and
or requests for field approvals being submitted and how if the 337 isn't
required that it will get rejected opening another can of worms. Are you
familiar with the guidance AC I'm referring to? Sorry I can't be more
precise.
Jim

This has been an interesting discussion. I wonder why the Airgizmo
website has this on the bottom of the page:
All products on this site are intended for use on experimental
aircraft.
Installation in a production aircraft requires an FAA field approval.
Copyright © 2006, AirGizmos, LLC. All Rights Reserved.