Legal Radio Installation

[xeM]

Can an AP/IA person legally install and sign off a VFR Nav/Comm radio
in a certified aircraft, given that he has all the needed technical
knowledge needed to do this, or is a 'certified radio shop' required
somewhere in the paperwork process? How about an IFR installation?
(not counting the transponder/encoder and altimeter cert. requrements)

[Newps]

"xeM" > wrote in message
...
> Can an AP/IA person legally install and sign off a VFR Nav/Comm radio
> in a certified aircraft, given that he has all the needed technical
> knowledge needed to do this, or is a 'certified radio shop' required
> somewhere in the paperwork process?

A&P/IA is all you need.

How about an IFR installation?

An IFR GPS requires a radio shop.

[xeM]

On Thu, 20 May 2004 16:50:43 -0600, "Newps" >
wrote:

>
>"xeM" > wrote in message
...
>> Can an AP/IA person legally install and sign off a VFR Nav/Comm radio
>> in a certified aircraft, given that he has all the needed technical
>> knowledge needed to do this, or is a 'certified radio shop' required
>> somewhere in the paperwork process?
>
>A&P/IA is all you need.
>
> How about an IFR installation?
>
>An IFR GPS requires a radio shop.
>


Would the new AC 20-138a change that requirement now? See
http://www.aea.net/aeatodayDetail.asp?ID=256

[[email protected]]

Gene Kearns > wrote:
:>Would the new AC 20-138a change that requirement now? See
:>http://www.aea.net/aeatodayDetail.asp?ID=256
:>

: My understanding is.... it would.... as long as the installation was
: not interfaced with another unit....

: Since GPS is no longer consider a "new technology" it's installation
: is equivalent to old tech, like a radio...

..... unless you are under the jurisdiction of at least the Richmond FSDO. I'm working
with my A&P/IA on installing a KLX-135 VFR GPS/COMM and the guy at the FSDO insists
that it's still a major alteration. Funny thing is that apparently, the act of
installing a placard saying "VFR use only" enters a whole new set of regulations
(think field approval along with major alteration) than utilizing the on-screen
message that reads "VFR use only." I don't understand it, but am rapidly concluding
that rational thought has nothing to do with it.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jim Weir]

[rant on]

What in the hell is WRONG with you people? How in the hell did a FSDO get
involved with a logbook installation?

I'll tell you how it happened. Either the owner or the IA was stupid enough to
ask the FSDO their opinion. After that, you are in the paperwork mill, and woe
betide you. You will never exit the other end unscathed.

Just SHUT YOUR MOUTH, do a LOGBOOK ENTRY, and both you and the Feds are going to
be mightily happy.

[rant off]

Jim





shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

->.... unless you are under the jurisdiction of at least the Richmond FSDO. I'm
working
->with my A&P/IA on installing a KLX-135 VFR GPS/COMM and the guy at the FSDO
insists
->that it's still a major alteration.

Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

[Gerry Caron]

"Gene Kearns" > wrote in message
...
>
> The best way to find out about the rationality of it all is to have
> the ASI to (1) show you in the regs where it says it is a major
> alteration and (2) explain to you what the purpose of AC 20-138A is
> and what it means.
>
Oh no. Never ask an FAA person to explain the regs -- you most definitely
won't like the answer. Do your own homework.

In all my dealings with certifications, one thing is very clear: It is not
the inspector's or ACO's job to tell you how to comply with the regulations.
Their job is to determine whether you have presented proper evidence to show
compliance. It is your job to show that you are complying with the regs.

The only break you get is the AC. It describes "a means, but not the only
means of showing compliance..." Read it. Understand it. Follow it.
Document everything the way it says to. If you follow it, and submit the
documentation to prove you did, they won't argue with you. There may be
other ways to show compliance; but if you try them, you're on your own. The
AC is the path of least resistance.

Gerry

[xeM]

On Fri, 21 May 2004 14:41:44 -0700, Jim Weir > wrote:

>[rant on]
>
>What in the hell is WRONG with you people? How in the hell did a FSDO get
>involved with a logbook installation?
>
>I'll tell you how it happened. Either the owner or the IA was stupid enough to
>ask the FSDO their opinion. After that, you are in the paperwork mill, and woe
>betide you. You will never exit the other end unscathed.
>
>Just SHUT YOUR MOUTH, do a LOGBOOK ENTRY, and both you and the Feds are going to
>be mightily happy.
>
>[rant off]
>
>Jim
>

I agree Jim,

The way I read AC-20-138a is:
1. Read and understand AC-20-138a
2. Install / Test GPS per AC-20-138a
3. Logbook signoff per minor mod.
4. FSDO dosen't need to be involved.

[[email protected]]

*sigh*.... that would be my preferred course of action. Most of the IA's I've
talked with believe, "If in doubt, send it in and see what the FAA says about it." I
suspect it's instilled fear to CYA. Nobody ever said the rules make sense. I find it
tragically comic how arbitrary and capricious the rules are written and enforced.

-Cory

Jim Weir > wrote:
: [rant on]

: What in the hell is WRONG with you people? How in the hell did a FSDO get
: involved with a logbook installation?

: I'll tell you how it happened. Either the owner or the IA was stupid enough to
: ask the FSDO their opinion. After that, you are in the paperwork mill, and woe
: betide you. You will never exit the other end unscathed.

: Just SHUT YOUR MOUTH, do a LOGBOOK ENTRY, and both you and the Feds are going to
: be mightily happy.

: [rant off]

: Jim




:
: shared these priceless pearls of wisdom:

: ->.... unless you are under the jurisdiction of at least the Richmond FSDO. I'm
: working
: ->with my A&P/IA on installing a KLX-135 VFR GPS/COMM and the guy at the FSDO
: insists
: ->that it's still a major alteration.

: Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
: VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
: http://www.rst-engr.com

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************

[Jay Masino]

Jim Weir > wrote:
> What in the hell is WRONG with you people? How in the hell did a FSDO get
> involved with a logbook installation?
> I'll tell you how it happened. Either the owner or the IA was stupid enough to
> ask the FSDO their opinion. After that, you are in the paperwork mill, and woe
> betide you. You will never exit the other end unscathed.
> Just SHUT YOUR MOUTH, do a LOGBOOK ENTRY, and both you and the Feds are going to
> be mightily happy.

Jim,

Obviously, if it was an IFR installation, he'd have to get a field
approval, because it's specifically required. However, from what I've
heard from a close friend, who owns an avionics shop, the FAA has
dictated that all FSDOs require a field approval for ALL GPS
installations, IFR or VFR. It's bull ****, but apparently, that's what
they want. Don't ask me why.

--- Jay (in Baltimore and/or Washington FSDO, depending on where I am)


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Masino wrote:
>
> However, from what I've
> heard from a close friend, who owns an avionics shop, the FAA has
> dictated that all FSDOs require a field approval for ALL GPS
> installations, IFR or VFR.

The Teterboro FSDO is the same way. Not sure about Allentown.

George Patterson
I childproofed my house, but they *still* get in.

[JohnN3TWN]

>However, from what I've
>heard from a close friend, who owns an avionics shop, the FAA has
>dictated that all FSDOs require a field approval for ALL GPS
>installations, IFR or VFR. It's bull ****, but apparently, that's what
>they want. Don't ask me why.
>
>--- Jay (in Baltimore and/or Washington FSDO, depending on where I am)
>
>


WRONG.........

As chief inspector of a maintenance and avionics shop, I *TOLD* the Baltimore
FSDO's avionics inspector that all VFR GPS installations we did would be done
in accordance with AC20-138A and would be minor alterations.

Remember folks, A&P's/IA's/repair stations interpert the regulations and FSDO's
enforce the regulations. If a FSDO inspector takes you to task for something
you've read, interperted, and done, insist that he/she supply you with
REGULATORY INFORMATION that refutes your opinion (and keep an open mind).

I know that ALL the avionics shops under the Baltimore FSDO are on the same
page, because my director of maintenance and I, with the help of AEA, organized
several meetings with the avionics shop personnel and the FSDO to iron this
issue out.

[xeM]

On 23 May 2004 11:01:37 GMT, (JohnN3TWN)
wrote:

>>However, from what I've
>>heard from a close friend, who owns an avionics shop, the FAA has
>>dictated that all FSDOs require a field approval for ALL GPS
>>installations, IFR or VFR. It's bull ****, but apparently, that's what
>>they want. Don't ask me why.
>>
>>--- Jay (in Baltimore and/or Washington FSDO, depending on where I am)
>>
>>
>
>
>WRONG.........
>
>As chief inspector of a maintenance and avionics shop, I *TOLD* the Baltimore
>FSDO's avionics inspector that all VFR GPS installations we did would be done
>in accordance with AC20-138A and would be minor alterations.
>
>Remember folks, A&P's/IA's/repair stations interpert the regulations and FSDO's
>enforce the regulations. If a FSDO inspector takes you to task for something
>you've read, interperted, and done, insist that he/she supply you with
>REGULATORY INFORMATION that refutes your opinion (and keep an open mind).
>
>I know that ALL the avionics shops under the Baltimore FSDO are on the same
>page, because my director of maintenance and I, with the help of AEA, organized
>several meetings with the avionics shop personnel and the FSDO to iron this
>issue out.


Can IFR GPS installations be done as minor alterations also under
AC20-138a? If not, does 138a at least simplify the 337 process?

[JohnN3TWN]

>Can IFR GPS installations be done as minor alterations also under
>AC20-138a? If not, does 138a at least simplify the 337 process?
>

No, and that is due primarily to the flight manual supplement that is required.
AC20-138A does make it pretty simple however.

So, an IFR GPS installation is done in two steps, first the VFR installation
(log book entry only) then, second, the 337 is filed with the flight manual
supplement and flight test information.

[[email protected]]

Gerry Caron > wrote:
: The only break you get is the AC. It describes "a means, but not the only
: means of showing compliance..." Read it. Understand it. Follow it.

Trouble is, our FSDO doesn't agree with the AC and still consideres a simple
VFR GPS installation to be a major alteration (citing some FAR that I wasn't privy
to). Yet another example of a conflict between the rules... both are right, but the
come to a different conclusion.

Bottom line is never as the FAA or it's FSDO representatives what they think.
You're almost certainly not going to like what they say, and then you're committed.

-Cory

--
************************************************** ***********************
* The prime directive of Linux: *
* - learn what you don't know, *
* - teach what you do. *
* (Just my 20 USm$) *
************************************************** ***********************