Mounting 396

Newps, Thanks.

Newps wrote:



Ray Andraka wrote:

OK, I have a 496, and an air gizmo mount, which I'd like to put on my
panel. I'm curious to the signoffs needed:

The Air gizmo I think should be allowed to be installed by the
owner/pilot as an interior decoration as long as it doesn't involve
drilling or cutting the panel. Correct? If I have to cut the panel
or drill holes, do I need an A&P signature? The W&B change is
negligible I believe.



It is a minor alteration and needs to be signed off by an A&P as such.
An owner cannot do that. Drilling or cutting does not affect that.




In order to wire the power into the aircraft power (not through a
cigar lighter plug), I think I need an A&P signature, and all work has
to conform to 43.13, nothing more correct?


Yes. One other way to go is to have the A&P wire up a cig lighter plug
under the panel where you can't see it. That way when the next
latest/greatest comes out you're ready to go. I have two extra cig
lighters under the panel. I have one wired directly to the battery so
it is always hot, that way I can recharge a cell phone or whatever. The
other is wired to come on with the master, that way the GPS fires up
automatically.




How about running extension wires for the XM USB and remote antenna to
the top of the glareshield with the wires behind the panel? I imagine
that needs an A&P sign-off if the wires are tie-wrapped into place?


No, it wouldn't.




OK, and the final question: It looks like in order to fit it in, I'll
need to pull the ancient Foster Loran and it's tray out. That's
surely going to need somebody's sign-off. Does that have to be pulled
by an avionics shop (it does have a connection to the autopilot
switch), or can that be done under an A&P's supervision and signature
as well? I figure I'll replace the Loran antenna with a comm antenna
and leave the end available on the panel for my handheld.


An A&P can do that. You can do all the work, just have him look it over
and sign it off. He'll have to change the placard on the autopilot
switch to reflect that the loran was removed.

Is your aircraft certified or experimental?



Here's an article from AOPA on the subject:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...0201parts.html
Don't take panel-mount option out of portable GPS, AOPA tells FAA
Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna
172's instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to
mount it. The parts — panel dock and connective wiring — needed to
mount your portable GPS would either no longer be available or be too
expense to buy.

The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to produce
a replacement or modification part if they know (or should know) the
part would end up installed in a certified aircraft — that is unless
they obtain production approval from the agency. But that costs tens
of thousands of dollars, something many companies can't afford.

While AOPA agrees production approval is necessary for critical parts
like connecting rods and cylinders, it isn't needed for non-critical
parts like a portable GPS panel dock or traffic detector that enhance
pilot safety.

"This [rule] would basically require any person who manufactures a
part, like a light bulb, smoke detector, entertainment system, or
other non-critical part that has not been identified as a 'standard or
commercial part' to obtain a production approval from the FAA if the
part is to be installed in a type-certificated product," Gutierrez
said in formal comments opposing the proposed rule.

Also under the rule, parts listed on the design approval for one
aircraft couldn't be used as a replacement in another aircraft.

For example, let's say Cessna installs GE light bulbs in the
aircraft's instrument panel and lists the bulb in its design approval.
Well, you wouldn't be able to use that same type of light bulb to
replace the burned out one in your old Bonanza.

These proposals "would substantially increase the cost of general
aviation parts and unnecessarily stifle the development and
availability of safety and operational enhancement modifications,"
Gutierrez told the FAA. "AOPA requests that the FAA revise this
proposal to ensure that replacement and modification parts remain
affordable and available to GA aircraft owners."

February 1, 2007


---------------------------------

AOPA's response to FAA NPRM: Docket No. FAA-2006-25877; Notice of
Proposed Ruelmaking; Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part
Marking, and Miscellaneous Proposals:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...rts-letter.pdf

--------------------------------

Enter docket number 25877 he
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

And you can read the NPRM and comments.

--------------------------------
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...M_Briefing.ppt
http://search.google.dot.gov/FAA/FAA...ntend&oe=UTF-8

Summary of Proposals

14 CFR Part 45 Continued
New Part Marking Requirements
Manufacturer & Part Number Req?d
Delete ?FAA-PMA? Markings
Delete ?installation eligibility? ? PMA

Project Status

Currently On Track ?
NPRM and Implementation Advisory Circulars Available for Comment at
http://dms.dot.gov, docket numbers 25877 and 25882

Final Rule to be published by April, 2008

Effective Date of Final Rule is set for October, 2009
---------------------------------

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

Newps wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

Here's what Air Gizmo's FAQ has to say about it.

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 is irrelevant what Air Gizmo has to say about it. If they don't
provide the STC then what they say about installation could not
possibly matter less.

I'd hardly say that it is irrelevant. They might just received some feedback
from what is happening in the real world.

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.

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.

"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