I'm part owner of a IFR 172E. Nice equipment, but no vacuum redundancy.
I know I can add a dual-rotor vacuum pump or a manifold-driven
alternate vacuum source, but I'd rather have an electric backup (in case
of engine failure). Electric pumps add weight and good backup electric
AI's are expensive. Does anyone have any experience installing/using
the new solid state gyros? I have an iPaq and handheld GPS, so the
"portable" units would be OK. One of the manufacturers has a panel
mounted unit, but apparently it can't go into a production plane. What
are the chances of getting a 337 for that if it is for backup only? I
can do partial panel, but I'd rather have the most capability that I can
get (within reasonable expense).
--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 08:16:01 -0500, Dan Truesdell
> wrote:

>I'm part owner of a IFR 172E. Nice equipment, but no vacuum redundancy.
> I know I can add a dual-rotor vacuum pump or a manifold-driven
>alternate vacuum source, but I'd rather have an electric backup (in case
>of engine failure). Electric pumps add weight and good backup electric
>AI's are expensive. Does anyone have any experience installing/using
>the new solid state gyros? I have an iPaq and handheld GPS, so the
>"portable" units would be OK. One of the manufacturers has a panel
>mounted unit, but apparently it can't go into a production plane. What
>are the chances of getting a 337 for that if it is for backup only? I
>can do partial panel, but I'd rather have the most capability that I can
>get (within reasonable expense).

If it is for backup and you keep the orginal AI in the plane, and you
have a cooperative mechanic and FSDO, you might be able to pull it
off. I'd make a few phone calls and get everything lined up before
you buy the equipment.

BTW, what panel mount solid state AI is available? Besides the 40k
G1000 and Entegra stacks?

-Nathan

There was an article about this in a recent AviationConsumer
(www.aviationconsumer.com).

Regarding the portable units, the gist is that they're capable enough if
you're in a bind. In fact, even something like a Garmin 196 would probably
get you out of trouble (at $999 though, you won't save any money here).
Depending on the flying you do, they also recommend keeping a spare pump
around (they estimate $300), otherwise if you're away from home you'll
either be going home VFR or paying some unknown shop to replace your pump.

Regarding a 337, it seems to depend heavily on your FSDO. Which company
offers a panel mount option?

blue skies,
mark

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
> I'm part owner of a IFR 172E. Nice equipment, but no vacuum redundancy.
> I know I can add a dual-rotor vacuum pump or a manifold-driven
> alternate vacuum source, but I'd rather have an electric backup (in case
> of engine failure). Electric pumps add weight and good backup electric
> AI's are expensive. Does anyone have any experience installing/using
> the new solid state gyros? I have an iPaq and handheld GPS, so the
> "portable" units would be OK. One of the manufacturers has a panel
> mounted unit, but apparently it can't go into a production plane. What
> are the chances of getting a 337 for that if it is for backup only? I
> can do partial panel, but I'd rather have the most capability that I can
> get (within reasonable expense).
> --
> Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>

PCFlightSystems (eGyro-3).

Dan

Mark Astley wrote:
> There was an article about this in a recent AviationConsumer
> (www.aviationconsumer.com).
>
> Regarding the portable units, the gist is that they're capable enough if
> you're in a bind. In fact, even something like a Garmin 196 would probably
> get you out of trouble (at $999 though, you won't save any money here).
> Depending on the flying you do, they also recommend keeping a spare pump
> around (they estimate $300), otherwise if you're away from home you'll
> either be going home VFR or paying some unknown shop to replace your pump.
>
> Regarding a 337, it seems to depend heavily on your FSDO. Which company
> offers a panel mount option?
>
> blue skies,
> mark
>
> "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I'm part owner of a IFR 172E. Nice equipment, but no vacuum redundancy.
>> I know I can add a dual-rotor vacuum pump or a manifold-driven
>>alternate vacuum source, but I'd rather have an electric backup (in case
>>of engine failure). Electric pumps add weight and good backup electric
>>AI's are expensive. Does anyone have any experience installing/using
>>the new solid state gyros? I have an iPaq and handheld GPS, so the
>>"portable" units would be OK. One of the manufacturers has a panel
>>mounted unit, but apparently it can't go into a production plane. What
>>are the chances of getting a 337 for that if it is for backup only? I
>>can do partial panel, but I'd rather have the most capability that I can
>>get (within reasonable expense).
>>--
>>Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>>
>
>
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

Thanks. Just checked out the aviation consumer article. Great
information. I have a call into the local FSDO. We'll see what they
say about the panel-mounted unit (e-Gyro-3). I do seem to recall
someone in the mid-west that tried to put one in with no luck. Maybe
the people in Maine will be a bit more helpful.

Mark Astley wrote:
> There was an article about this in a recent AviationConsumer
> (www.aviationconsumer.com).
>
> Regarding the portable units, the gist is that they're capable enough if
> you're in a bind. In fact, even something like a Garmin 196 would probably
> get you out of trouble (at $999 though, you won't save any money here).
> Depending on the flying you do, they also recommend keeping a spare pump
> around (they estimate $300), otherwise if you're away from home you'll
> either be going home VFR or paying some unknown shop to replace your pump.
>
> Regarding a 337, it seems to depend heavily on your FSDO. Which company
> offers a panel mount option?
>
> blue skies,
> mark
>
> "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I'm part owner of a IFR 172E. Nice equipment, but no vacuum redundancy.
>> I know I can add a dual-rotor vacuum pump or a manifold-driven
>>alternate vacuum source, but I'd rather have an electric backup (in case
>>of engine failure). Electric pumps add weight and good backup electric
>>AI's are expensive. Does anyone have any experience installing/using
>>the new solid state gyros? I have an iPaq and handheld GPS, so the
>>"portable" units would be OK. One of the manufacturers has a panel
>>mounted unit, but apparently it can't go into a production plane. What
>>are the chances of getting a 337 for that if it is for backup only? I
>>can do partial panel, but I'd rather have the most capability that I can
>>get (within reasonable expense).
>>--
>>Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>>
>
>
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

Dan Truesdell > wrote:
>One of the manufacturers has a panel
>mounted unit, but apparently it can't go into a production plane. What
>are the chances of getting a 337 for that if it is for backup only? I
>can do partial panel, but I'd rather have the most capability that I can
>get (within reasonable expense).



By installing uncertified equipment as an emergency backup, you are
essentially becoming a test pilot. How will this unit handle turbulence,
temperature and pressure changes, static charges, nearby lightning? Will
it produce emmissions that may interfere with your other radios or
navigation equipment? How much training will be required to stay
proficient in it's use? My guess is at least as much as partial panel
using a plain old turn coordinator, probably more if it is mounted outside
your normal insturment scan area. IMHO, this would not be a safety gain,
and the money would be better spent on traditional partial panel practice.


Ross Oliver

PCFlight Systems sizes their portable unit to fit into a standard 3"
instrument hole (wink, wink). I was told the odds of getting a 337 for the
thing were about zero. I asked PCFlight Systems if they had any plans to
invest the $50 - $100K it would take to get an STC and they just laughed.

Ah, the FAA, busy enshrining mediocrity.

Tell you what, if 100 people on here each chip in $1000 I'll put the money
into an escrow account, get the 337 and then sell you a unit at cost. Think
of it, you'll own 1/100th of an avionics company!

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
> Thanks. Just checked out the aviation consumer article. Great
> information. I have a call into the local FSDO. We'll see what they
> say about the panel-mounted unit (e-Gyro-3). I do seem to recall
> someone in the mid-west that tried to put one in with no luck. Maybe
> the people in Maine will be a bit more helpful.
>
> Mark Astley wrote:
> > There was an article about this in a recent AviationConsumer
> > (www.aviationconsumer.com).
> >
> > Regarding the portable units, the gist is that they're capable enough if
> > you're in a bind. In fact, even something like a Garmin 196 would
probably
> > get you out of trouble (at $999 though, you won't save any money here).
> > Depending on the flying you do, they also recommend keeping a spare pump
> > around (they estimate $300), otherwise if you're away from home you'll
> > either be going home VFR or paying some unknown shop to replace your
pump.
> >
> > Regarding a 337, it seems to depend heavily on your FSDO. Which company
> > offers a panel mount option?
> >
> > blue skies,
> > mark
> >
> > "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>I'm part owner of a IFR 172E. Nice equipment, but no vacuum redundancy.
> >> I know I can add a dual-rotor vacuum pump or a manifold-driven
> >>alternate vacuum source, but I'd rather have an electric backup (in case
> >>of engine failure). Electric pumps add weight and good backup electric
> >>AI's are expensive. Does anyone have any experience installing/using
> >>the new solid state gyros? I have an iPaq and handheld GPS, so the
> >>"portable" units would be OK. One of the manufacturers has a panel
> >>mounted unit, but apparently it can't go into a production plane. What
> >>are the chances of getting a 337 for that if it is for backup only? I
> >>can do partial panel, but I'd rather have the most capability that I can
> >>get (within reasonable expense).
> >>--
> >>Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>

I had an interesting conversation with out local FSDO today. He
basically reported the FAA party line that anything that is "physically
attached" to a production aircraft must have an STC/337/what-ever to be
legal. (I guess in the event that someone uses your plane and gets into
trouble using the "unapproved" device, the FAA could be held
accountable?) Anyway, he (in so many words) seemed to agree that it's
odd that, while I can't put the eGyro3 into the plane, I can (and
probably will) purchase the PCEFIS "portable" unit and use it as a
backup. (Maybe they trust velcro more than actual bolts.) The aviation
consumer article had an interesting take, however, on the role of the
backup pump. From what I understand, if I install an electric pump and
a regular vacuum backup AI. If either the regular pump or the AI bites
the dust, I can still legally fly, even IFR with the backup system.
Interesting point. But my main goal was to give myself some redundancy.

McGregor wrote:
> PCFlight Systems sizes their portable unit to fit into a standard 3"
> instrument hole (wink, wink). I was told the odds of getting a 337 for the
> thing were about zero. I asked PCFlight Systems if they had any plans to
> invest the $50 - $100K it would take to get an STC and they just laughed.
>
> Ah, the FAA, busy enshrining mediocrity.
>
> Tell you what, if 100 people on here each chip in $1000 I'll put the money
> into an escrow account, get the 337 and then sell you a unit at cost. Think
> of it, you'll own 1/100th of an avionics company!
>
> "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Thanks. Just checked out the aviation consumer article. Great
>>information. I have a call into the local FSDO. We'll see what they
>>say about the panel-mounted unit (e-Gyro-3). I do seem to recall
>>someone in the mid-west that tried to put one in with no luck. Maybe
>>the people in Maine will be a bit more helpful.
>>
>>Mark Astley wrote:
>>
>>>There was an article about this in a recent AviationConsumer
>>>(www.aviationconsumer.com).
>>>
>>>Regarding the portable units, the gist is that they're capable enough if
>>>you're in a bind. In fact, even something like a Garmin 196 would
>>
> probably
>
>>>get you out of trouble (at $999 though, you won't save any money here).
>>>Depending on the flying you do, they also recommend keeping a spare pump
>>>around (they estimate $300), otherwise if you're away from home you'll
>>>either be going home VFR or paying some unknown shop to replace your
>>
> pump.
>
>>>Regarding a 337, it seems to depend heavily on your FSDO. Which company
>>>offers a panel mount option?
>>>
>>>blue skies,
>>>mark
>>>
>>>"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm part owner of a IFR 172E. Nice equipment, but no vacuum redundancy.
>>>> I know I can add a dual-rotor vacuum pump or a manifold-driven
>>>>alternate vacuum source, but I'd rather have an electric backup (in case
>>>>of engine failure). Electric pumps add weight and good backup electric
>>>>AI's are expensive. Does anyone have any experience installing/using
>>>>the new solid state gyros? I have an iPaq and handheld GPS, so the
>>>>"portable" units would be OK. One of the manufacturers has a panel
>>>>mounted unit, but apparently it can't go into a production plane. What
>>>>are the chances of getting a 337 for that if it is for backup only? I
>>>>can do partial panel, but I'd rather have the most capability that I can
>>>>get (within reasonable expense).
>>>>--
>>>>Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>Remove "2PLANES" to reply.
>>
>
>
>


--
Remove "2PLANES" to reply.

Dan Truesdell > wrote in
:

> Thanks. Just checked out the aviation consumer article. Great
> information. I have a call into the local FSDO. We'll see what they
> say about the panel-mounted unit (e-Gyro-3). I do seem to recall
> someone in the mid-west that tried to put one in with no luck. Maybe
> the people in Maine will be a bit more helpful.

A lot will depend upon how you describe this thing. It is **not** a backup
AI, nor is it a redundant AI, or is it even an aviation product. It is a
small electronic device, which you wish to panel mount and connect to the
ship's power. This device will be adequately fused and tested in VFR/VMC
by the pilot/operator prior to operation IFR, and verified not to interfere
with onboard avionics.

Remember, in an EMERGENCY it suddenly doesn't matter if it's an AI or a
tuna sandwich, it's legal to use.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

Take a look at www.dynondevelopment.com/ , they have an awesome EFIS for $2000.
No it is not "certified".

Dan Truesdell > wrote in message >...
> I'm part owner of a IFR 172E. Nice equipment, but no vacuum redundancy.
> I know I can add a dual-rotor vacuum pump or a manifold-driven
> alternate vacuum source, but I'd rather have an electric backup (in case
> of engine failure). Electric pumps add weight and good backup electric
> AI's are expensive. Does anyone have any experience installing/using
> the new solid state gyros? I have an iPaq and handheld GPS, so the
> "portable" units would be OK. One of the manufacturers has a panel
> mounted unit, but apparently it can't go into a production plane. What
> are the chances of getting a 337 for that if it is for backup only? I
> can do partial panel, but I'd rather have the most capability that I can
> get (within reasonable expense).

"Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message ...
> I had an interesting conversation with out local FSDO today. He
> basically reported the FAA party line that anything that is "physically
> attached" to a production aircraft must have an STC/337/what-ever to be
> legal.

This argument is not supported by the regulation (depending on what you
mean by "what-ever"). A 337 is filed persuant to major modification.
The rule defining major modification doesn't say "anything attacdhed to
an aircraft." This is a figment of the FAA field organizaiton.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
...
> > I had an interesting conversation with out local FSDO today. He
> > basically reported the FAA party line that anything that is "physically
> > attached" to a production aircraft must have an STC/337/what-ever to be
> > legal.
>
> This argument is not supported by the regulation (depending on what you
> mean by "what-ever"). A 337 is filed persuant to major modification.

There are three signature levels for a 337, but it is required for the
airplane to return to service, after a change.

> The rule defining major modification doesn't say "anything attacdhed to
> an aircraft." This is a figment of the FAA field organizaiton.
>

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...
> >
> > "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > > I had an interesting conversation with out local FSDO today. He
> > > basically reported the FAA party line that anything that is "physically
> > > attached" to a production aircraft must have an STC/337/what-ever to be
> > > legal.
> >
> > This argument is not supported by the regulation (depending on what you
> > mean by "what-ever"). A 337 is filed persuant to major modification.
>
> There are three signature levels for a 337, but it is required for the
> airplane to return to service, after a change.

So, how many signatures is required isn't an issue. If it's not a major
alteration, you don't have to deal with it at all.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >
> > > "Dan Truesdell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > > I had an interesting conversation with out local FSDO today. He
> > > > basically reported the FAA party line that anything that is
"physically
> > > > attached" to a production aircraft must have an STC/337/what-ever to
be
> > > > legal.
> > >
> > > This argument is not supported by the regulation (depending on what
you
> > > mean by "what-ever"). A 337 is filed persuant to major
modification.
> >
> > There are three signature levels for a 337, but it is required for the
> > airplane to return to service, after a change.
>
> So, how many signatures is required isn't an issue. If it's not a major
> alteration, you don't have to deal with it at all.

Doesn't your mechanic sign off 337s for you?

If you mean that an owner operator can pretty much do whatever they want to,
of course.

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
> m...

<snip>
> > > There are three signature levels for a 337, but it is required for the
> > > airplane to return to service, after a change.
> >
> > So, how many signatures is required isn't an issue. If it's not a
major
> > alteration, you don't have to deal with it at all.
>
> Doesn't your mechanic sign off 337s for you?
>
> If you mean that an owner operator can pretty much do whatever they want
to,
> of course.

Let me add to this, that the owner operator can even certify the part,
through the MIDO, if the manufacturer holds any PMA, or TSOA; for any part.
There is even a MIDO form the owner operator can fill out and file, that
makes it all legal. Our MIDO inspector flys an old Commander and he wanted
us to know that it was a real deal, as he has trouble getting parts for his
airplane, at times.

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message ...
=> > So, how many signatures is required isn't an issue. If it's not a major
> > alteration, you don't have to deal with it at all.
>
> Doesn't your mechanic sign off 337s for you?
>
> If you mean that an owner operator can pretty much do whatever they want to,
> of course.

No, it means that if it's not a major repair or alteration the FAA doesn't want to
hear about it on a 337. Does your mechanic file a 337 everytime maintenance
is performed on your aircraft? A major modification involves something that
changes the design of the aircraft as spelled out in Part 43. As long as I'm
playing along with the type certificate, my mechanic doesn't need any permission
from the FAA to perform work. It's not even the magnitude of the work that's
an issue. You can swap out entire engines for example, as long as it's part of
the approved design.

"Ron Natalie" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> => > So, how many signatures is required isn't an issue. If it's not a
major
> > > alteration, you don't have to deal with it at all.
> >
> > Doesn't your mechanic sign off 337s for you?
> >
> > If you mean that an owner operator can pretty much do whatever they want
to,
> > of course.
>
> No, it means that if it's not a major repair or alteration the FAA doesn't
want to
> hear about it on a 337.

The FAA only signs one block of the three signature blocks of the 337.

The lack of a major modification in no way relieves the requirement for a
337 to return to flight.

> Does your mechanic file a 337 everytime maintenance
> is performed on your aircraft?

The 337 is part of the airplane's records.

> A major modification involves something that
> changes the design of the aircraft as spelled out in Part 43. As long
as I'm
> playing along with the type certificate, my mechanic doesn't need any
permission
> from the FAA to perform work. It's not even the magnitude of the work
that's
> an issue. You can swap out entire engines for example, as long as it's
part of
> the approved design.

There are three signature levels on the FAA form 337:

A&P
IA
FSDO

Some changes are perfectly fine for an A&P to sign off and FAA never needs
to know about it.

> The lack of a major modification in no way relieves the requirement for a
> 337 to return to flight.

There's a reason why the title of Form 337
(http://av-info.faa.gov/afsforms/337.pdf) is "MAJOR REPAIR AND ALTERATION".
The requirement to file a 337 is given in Part 43, Appendix B, Recording of
Major Repairs and Major Alterations:

(a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this appendix, each
person performing a major repair or major alteration shall --

(1) Execute FAA Form 337 at least in duplicate; ...

Barry

"Barry" > wrote in message
...
> > The lack of a major modification in no way relieves the requirement for
a
> > 337 to return to flight.
>
> There's a reason why the title of Form 337
> (http://av-info.faa.gov/afsforms/337.pdf) is "MAJOR REPAIR AND
ALTERATION".
> The requirement to file a 337 is given in Part 43, Appendix B, Recording
of
> Major Repairs and Major Alterations:
>
> (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this appendix,
each
> person performing a major repair or major alteration shall --
>
> (1) Execute FAA Form 337 at least in duplicate; ...

Sure, but non-sequitur.

Tarver Engineering wrote:

>
> The FAA only signs one block of the three signature blocks of the 337.

Irrelavant.


>
> The lack of a major modification in no way relieves the requirement for a
> 337 to return to flight.
>
>
>>Does your mechanic file a 337 everytime maintenance
>>is performed on your aircraft?
>
>
> The 337 is part of the airplane's records.

Yes, but again irrelavant for this discussion. The point is most
maintenence on the plane does not require a 337 to be filed.

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:fWDNb.61533$sv6.139538@attbi_s52...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> >
> > The FAA only signs one block of the three signature blocks of the 337.
>
> Irrelavant.

I like it that way, then you can show how that 8 track got on your airplane.

> > The lack of a major modification in no way relieves the requirement for
a
> > 337 to return to flight.
> >
> >
> >>Does your mechanic file a 337 everytime maintenance
> >>is performed on your aircraft?
> >
> >
> > The 337 is part of the airplane's records.
>
> Yes, but again irrelavant for this discussion. The point is most
> maintenence on the plane does not require a 337 to be filed.

I explicitly posted that the 337 need not be filed.

Look, here we have a guy wanting to do an istall of a part, perhaps
uncertified, and all I am doing is helping him. If you feel that I am
somehow requiring the filing of 337s, you have misunderstood my regulatory
authority.