Pic of the Airgizmo installation

[Jay Honeck]

http://masl.to/?W27812C4E

A short explanation is here:
http://www.alexisparkinn.com/2006_airgizmo-xm_install.htm

Adding this thing is a terrific, affordable mod that really cleans up
the cockpit. If you've got the panel space, I highly recommend it.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Just had to get the "Best 235" award in there didn't you? :)





"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> http://masl.to/?W27812C4E
>
> A short explanation is here:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/2006_airgizmo-xm_install.htm
>
> Adding this thing is a terrific, affordable mod that really cleans up
> the cockpit. If you've got the panel space, I highly recommend it.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Mike Noel]

So Jay, can the pilot see and operate the 496 OK when it is mounted on the
copilots side of the panel? I have an ADF there that I wouldn't mind
getting rid of, but I thought mounting the Gizmo with angle adapter on the
copilots side might be awkward.

--
Best Regards,
Mike

http://photoshow.comcast.net/mikenoel

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> http://masl.to/?W27812C4E
>
> A short explanation is here:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/2006_airgizmo-xm_install.htm
>
> Adding this thing is a terrific, affordable mod that really cleans up
> the cockpit. If you've got the panel space, I highly recommend it.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> So Jay, can the pilot see and operate the 496 OK when it is mounted on the
> copilots side of the panel? I have an ADF there that I wouldn't mind
> getting rid of, but I thought mounting the Gizmo with angle adapter on the
> copilots side might be awkward.

Yes! It's easily readable (even for a dinky screen -- but then you
know my opinion of the Garmin screen size) and reachable from the
pilot's side, thanks to that angle bracket.

This is especially true for me, since I sit with the seat back a bit.
Mary, who flies with the seat all the way forward (plus a pillow)
doesn't have *quite* as good a view from the pilot's side, but she's
had no complaints thus far.

I got rid of an old Narco DME to make room, and gained 5 pounds of
useful load. (And the shop gave me a $150 credit for it...)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Just had to get the "Best 235" award in there didn't you? :)

Heck, yeah!

Although I do feel kinda bad that we've sorta let Atlas go this year,
cosmetically. As you can see by the pic, there's some touch-up
painting I should be doing on the panel.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[john smith]

In article >,
"Mike Noel" > wrote:

> So Jay, can the pilot see and operate the 496 OK when it is mounted on the
> copilots side of the panel? I have an ADF there that I wouldn't mind
> getting rid of, but I thought mounting the Gizmo with angle adapter on the
> copilots side might be awkward.

Left seat pilot flying does not get to operate the device unless flying
solo.

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> 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?

Sheesh!


:-)

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

[Mike Adams[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> A short explanation is here:
> http://www.alexisparkinn.com/2006_airgizmo-xm_install.htm
>
> Adding this thing is a terrific, affordable mod that really cleans up
> the cockpit. If you've got the panel space, I highly recommend it.

Looks good, Jay. Thanks.

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

Mike

[Jay Honeck]

> 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.

The other shop I contacted (in Galesburg, IL) was adamant that they
could NOT install it without field approval from a different FSDO.
Needless to say, they didn't get my business.

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.

Anyway, the moral of the story is: Shop around. Not all FSDOs (or
shops) are created equal.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Burns[_1_]]

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.

My A&P's answer to my question about the lack of conformity was based around
the current "no new hires" policy at some of the smaller FSDO's. With
Inspectors retiring or moving out, some of them are not getting replaced.
The smaller staffs are starting to take a closer look at it's ability to
retain it's "annality". Of course I'm sure that it also has something to do
with the A&P's ability to sell the FSDO on the point of it not being a major
repair, using the FAA's own AC's and definitions as proof.
Jim


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> > 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.
>
> The other shop I contacted (in Galesburg, IL) was adamant that they
> could NOT install it without field approval from a different FSDO.
> Needless to say, they didn't get my business.
>
> 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.
>
> Anyway, the moral of the story is: Shop around. Not all FSDOs (or
> shops) are created equal.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

[Jay Honeck]

> > 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"

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"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

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[Newps]

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.

[Newps]

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.

[Jay Honeck]

> 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"

[Newps]

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.

[Jim Burns]

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

[Newps]

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
>
>

[150flivver]

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.

[Newps]

150flivver wrote:
> 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.




That's a copout and legal mumbo jumbo. The fact is if a company doesn't
STC their product they lose any authority to tell you how to install it.

[Jay Honeck]

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

Actually, Newps, I know it's out of character for me to do so -- but
I'm *complimenting* the FAA on this one. (Well, the Des Moines FSDO,
anyway...)

They looked at a gray area, and made a real-life, common sense ruling
in favor of making the installation of an AirGizmo a logbook entry.
Kudos to whomever made the call!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Mike Spera]

>
> There's nothing gray about it.

The point some are trying to make is that it does not matter WHAT your
opinion is as the plane owner or what the opinion is of the installing
wrench. It does not matter what is contained in the ACs and other pubs
if the mechanics don't all agree. The fact that some immediately call
the FSDO shows they don't have a common understanding of what others
find so crystal clear. Those who say this is clear may be technically
correct. But, as a practical matter, that won't mean a hill of beans
when someone who has a different view starts a beef about it.

At some future time, after the plane is sold twice, or some inspector
hungry for a violation performs a ramp check 5 states over, you could
well be flagged on the install. A wrench who does not "get it" may well
flag it on a pre-buy as an improper install. The wrench who signed it
off cannot (and likely will not) stand behind you.

Was the thing hard wired into the plane for power? Or did the shop
simply tie wrap the power cable to the harness and snake it around the
front of the panel to go into the cig. lighter?

Mike

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>
> They looked at a gray area, and made a real-life, common sense ruling
> in favor of making the installation of an AirGizmo a logbook entry.
> Kudos to whomever made the call!

Yhe point I'm trying to make is it's not a gray area. It's not a
decision the FSDO should ever have been asked to make.

[Newps]

Mike Spera wrote:


>
> At some future time, after the plane is sold twice, or some inspector
> hungry for a violation performs a ramp check 5 states over, you could
> well be flagged on the install. A wrench who does not "get it" may well
> flag it on a pre-buy as an improper install. The wrench who signed it
> off cannot (and likely will not) stand behind you.

OK, take a ramp check as an example. Inspector comes up and doesn't
like the Gizmo. Looking thru the window he has no idea what process
happened to make that legal. He doesn't know if you just had a logbook
signoff or got a field approval. There's nothing he's going to do on
that ramp to stop you from flying today. If he wants further
documentation on the device he can make a request that you produce your
records. Whatever. It ain't going to happen today. And if he does
make that request the fact of the matter is the mechanic signed it off,
therefore it's legal. The FAA has to go thru quite a process to make
you remove that Gizmo. The fact of the matter hundreds of these are
being quite properly signed off with a logbook entry.



>
> Was the thing hard wired into the plane for power? Or did the shop
> simply tie wrap the power cable to the harness and snake it around the
> front of the panel to go into the cig. lighter?



The power cord is irrelavant. I have an XM radio attached to the front
of my panel. I had my mechanic install a cig lighter up under the panel
so you couldn't see it. The XM is plugged into that. I would have just
hard wired the XM cord but it needs less voltage, 5 or 6 volts I think,
so you need the end of the original cord which is the voltage reducer.
I do have my 295 hardwired, although it is not in the panel, merely on
an arm attached to the back of my throw over yoke.

[Jay Honeck]

> > They looked at a gray area, and made a real-life, common sense ruling
> > in favor of making the installation of an AirGizmo a logbook entry.
> > Kudos to whomever made the call!
>
> Yhe point I'm trying to make is it's not a gray area. It's not a
> decision the FSDO should ever have been asked to make.

I get it! But, despite this, they made the *right* decision.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[karl gruber[_1_]]

That's just what a friend told me with his 180. He installed the Airgizmo
(great name), but then pulled it out in favor of the Propellerhead mount.
http://www.propellerheadpilot.com/Default.htm

Of course, the Skywagon crowd is pretty advanced in hangar queening their
airplanes.
http://temp.corvetteforum.net/c5/kgruber//sa_flyer_stc-c180.pdf

Karl
"Curator" N185KG

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> 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]

> That's just what a friend told me with his 180. He installed the Airgizmo
> (great name), but then pulled it out in favor of the Propellerhead mount.
> http://www.propellerheadpilot.com/Default.htm

That's a slick-looking product -- I might have to move our Lowrance
Airmap 2000c onto one of those things.

I don't like the "remove it at the end of the day to save the suction
cup" thing, though. That would get old.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[karl gruber[_1_]]

It does get old. But then I find that I've been using my 396 for XM radio at
night. I love the old mystery radio shows.
Then I use the thing in "auto" mode........and drove Houston---Walla Walla
without a hitch. It did drive me off and on a couple of off ramps though.

Then I use it in my friends 46' Swan, and have a Bluechart chip from Olympia
to Alaska that has 1500 marine charts on it. I can't believe it's become by
main music/aviation/auto,marine data source.

Great technology.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG
"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> That's just what a friend told me with his 180. He installed the Airgizmo
>> (great name), but then pulled it out in favor of the Propellerhead mount.
>> http://www.propellerheadpilot.com/Default.htm
>
> That's a slick-looking product -- I might have to move our Lowrance
> Airmap 2000c onto one of those things.
>
> I don't like the "remove it at the end of the day to save the suction
> cup" thing, though. That would get old.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>