FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS

They are being factory installed by the LSA makers.
http://www.legend.aero/manufacturing.cfm scroll down
the page to see.
http://www.cubcrafters.com/sportcub/gallery.aspx


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. net...
| Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net
posted:
|
| FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
| 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
| expensive to buy.
|
| Perhaps I'm missing something, here. What is there to buy
besides a sheet
| of stock aluminum and a few screws? The "wiring" comes
with the portable
| GPS in the way of the remote antenna lead and power
connector.
|
| Neil
|
|

FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
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.

What a bunch of crap. The AirGizmo panel dock (for our 496) is the
nicest thing we've done in our plane, making sure that we don't have
the usual "cat's cradle" of wires fouling the controls and getting in
the way of everything. It's clean, neat, and works great.

No *wonder* the gummint doesn't want it.

This is just another example of our underworked, over-paid gummint
bureaucrats sticking their fingers into places they don't belong. If
we fired every third one of 'em, we'd only have twice as many as we
need.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2 Feb 2007 12:49:06 -0800, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in .com:

The AirGizmo panel dock (for our 496) is the
nicest thing we've done in our plane, making sure that we don't have
the usual "cat's cradle" of wires fouling the controls and getting in
the way of everything.


How did you route the power and antenna wires? Did you wire the power
to a circuit breaker or leave the cigar lighter plug on? Are you sure
the wiring won't catch in the sprockets and chains of the aileron
controls?

How did you route the power and antenna wires? Did you wire the power
to a circuit breaker or leave the cigar lighter plug on? Are you sure
the wiring won't catch in the sprockets and chains of the aileron
controls?

Everything was professionally installed by McCandless Aviation in
Waterloo, IA (KALO). I've looked under the panel myself, and
everything is very professionally zip-tied up and out of the way.

It's a fantastic improvement over the octopus of wires that comes with
a yoke mount.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
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.

What jurisdiction does the FAA have over manufacturers? They don't make
'laws', so how can they make something 'illegal'. I realize they could make
life miserable for a company that also produces certified parts, but I don't
see how the FAA can make manufacturing something illegal.

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:39:13 GMT, "Steve Foley"
wrote in 5cOwh.21$yI1.10@trndny01:

They don't make 'laws', so how can they make something 'illegal'.

The OP meant to say, a violation of regulations, not illegal, I think.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


They don't make 'laws', so how can they make something 'illegal'.

The OP meant to say, a violation of regulations, not illegal, I think.

You've mentioned this distinction at least a couple times recently, but I'm
thinking it's a lot less black & white than I'd like it to be.

When you have such a thing as an "administrative law judge" and Congress
forfeiting (gladly?) to the Executive branch broad regulatory power,
regulations begin to carry the weight of "law" and "violation of
regulations" becomes essentially the same thing as "illegal." The only
significant distinction is jail time or the lack thereof. However, if the
penalty is severe enough, losing one's estate is not much better than simple
jail time.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 20:43:25 -0500, "John T"
wrote in
:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


They don't make 'laws', so how can they make something 'illegal'.

The OP meant to say, a violation of regulations, not illegal, I think.

You've mentioned this distinction at least a couple times recently, but I'm
thinking it's a lot less black & white than I'd like it to be.

When you have such a thing as an "administrative law judge" and Congress
forfeiting (gladly?) to the Executive branch broad regulatory power,
regulations begin to carry the weight of "law" and "violation of
regulations" becomes essentially the same thing as "illegal."

We disagree.

The only significant distinction is jail time or the lack thereof.

Of course, you are free to believe what you like. However, because
there is no presumption of innocence, nor judicial due process, nor
arraignment, nor trial by jury, etc., there are significant
differences between a court case and an administrative action. If you
are unable to discern the distinctions between them, you fail to
appreciate the true disadvantage of a pilot facing the FAA.

However, if the penalty is severe enough, losing one's estate is not
much better than simple jail time.

To my knowledge, the FAA has only limited power to impose civil fines,
and personally, I consider the lack of threat of incarceration a very
significant difference. And You'll have to cite a precedent before
I'll believe a pilot facing an FAA administrative action is subject to
losing his "estate," what ever that means.

It is my understanding, that the FAA's power to impose penalties on
airmen is limited to a $1,000.00 civil fine and certificate
suspension, or revocation, but I have no first hand knowledge,
thankfully.

So just how "black and white" would you like it to be?

In a previous article, Larry Dighera said:
It is my understanding, that the FAA's power to impose penalties on
airmen is limited to a $1,000.00 civil fine and certificate
suspension, or revocation, but I have no first hand knowledge,
thankfully.

They can also declare that your plane with this installation is no longer
airworthy, which would mean you've just lost most if not all of the value
of your airplane. That seems like a pretty strong disincentive.


--
Paul Tomblin http://blog.xcski.com/
There's going to be no serious problem after this. --Ken Thompson

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message


We disagree.

Perhaps, but I don't think by much.

Of course, you are free to believe what you like. However, because
there is no presumption of innocence, nor judicial due process, nor
arraignment, nor trial by jury, etc., there are significant
differences between a court case and an administrative action. If you
are unable to discern the distinctions between them, you fail to
appreciate the true disadvantage of a pilot facing the FAA.

Actually, I do appreciate and agree that facing regulatory violations is
quite an imposing situation where the accused still needs an attorney and
may appeal rulings very similarly to criminal cases.

To my knowledge, the FAA has only limited power to impose civil fines,
and personally, I consider the lack of threat of incarceration a very
significant difference. And You'll have to cite a precedent before
I'll believe a pilot facing an FAA administrative action is subject to
losing his "estate," what ever that means.

I was broadening the position to more than just the FAA, but even talking
specifically about the FAA, think about the term "administrative law judge"
(as one might presumably face in appealing FAA administrative actions). This
title alone implies regulations carry the weight of law.

I *think,* based on the flavor of your comments, you and I agree regulatory
agencies have more power than they should.

--
John T
http://sage1solutions.com/blogs/TknoFlyer
Reduce spam. Use Sender Policy Framework: http://openspf.org
____________________