Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga

[Marco Leon]

Apparently, installation of the Airgizmo panel dock is quite the touchy
subject up here in the Northeast. I know this has been a subject of a
number of threads but I figured I'd relay my experience so far. Since I
would like it integrated with my Garmin 430 and 340 audio panel (for
the audio out), I'd really rather have a pro do it.

First I contacted the local FSDO located on my home field (KFRG) and
talked to the avionics guy to solicit his point of view. His view was
that it was a VFR install and as such, it only needed a logbook
entry--no 337. However, he stressed that all the FSDO's are different
on this subject and I would need to contact the installer to get their
FSDO's take. He recommended getting a 337 anyway just in case. Fair
enough, makes sense to me.

After contacting the local shops, I quickly realize that none of the
Conn. shops will touch it and neither will the shops in Westshester or
New Jersey. All their FSDO's are dead set against the install. Well,
there goes the convenience of being local. An independent guy will do
the install in Rhode Island but I am hesitant because he has not done
any of these installs and at $70/hr, I don't feel like paying for his
schooling. Islip Avionics in Long Island was just rude ("so, where's
your paperwork on the thing? You got an STC? You talked to my FSDO?
Tell me the name of the guy. I don't need his phone number I just want
to see if you know the guy's name") and besides, they were $115/hr vs.
$70 everywhere else. That was the closest I've been in a while to
telling someone I don't know to f**k off.

That leaves Pennsylvania as the closest. I have a quote from Penn
Avionics and I'm trying to get a day to go there. They've done a number
of these already and know exactly what I want and their prices are not
bad. Their FSDO is OK with it as a logbook entry but they can do the
field approval for some extra $$. They also brought up a good point in
that if I get a 337 to cover me "just in case," I'll need another 337
to take it out if I sell the plane and want to keep the 496.

If anyone in the northeast area has had better success, I'd be
interested in a PIREP.

Jay, If you're reading, you had it easy with Atlas!

Marco

[Steve Foley]

Call Conrad at the Radio Shop in Worcester , MA (ORH).

508-757-6954

Tell him I told you to call. It won't do you any good, but it may help me :)




"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Apparently, installation of the Airgizmo panel dock is quite the touchy
> subject up here in the Northeast. I know this has been a subject of a
> number of threads but I figured I'd relay my experience so far. Since I
> would like it integrated with my Garmin 430 and 340 audio panel (for
> the audio out), I'd really rather have a pro do it.
>
> First I contacted the local FSDO located on my home field (KFRG) and
> talked to the avionics guy to solicit his point of view. His view was
> that it was a VFR install and as such, it only needed a logbook
> entry--no 337. However, he stressed that all the FSDO's are different
> on this subject and I would need to contact the installer to get their
> FSDO's take. He recommended getting a 337 anyway just in case. Fair
> enough, makes sense to me.
>
> After contacting the local shops, I quickly realize that none of the
> Conn. shops will touch it and neither will the shops in Westshester or
> New Jersey. All their FSDO's are dead set against the install. Well,
> there goes the convenience of being local. An independent guy will do
> the install in Rhode Island but I am hesitant because he has not done
> any of these installs and at $70/hr, I don't feel like paying for his
> schooling. Islip Avionics in Long Island was just rude ("so, where's
> your paperwork on the thing? You got an STC? You talked to my FSDO?
> Tell me the name of the guy. I don't need his phone number I just want
> to see if you know the guy's name") and besides, they were $115/hr vs.
> $70 everywhere else. That was the closest I've been in a while to
> telling someone I don't know to f**k off.
>
> That leaves Pennsylvania as the closest. I have a quote from Penn
> Avionics and I'm trying to get a day to go there. They've done a number
> of these already and know exactly what I want and their prices are not
> bad. Their FSDO is OK with it as a logbook entry but they can do the
> field approval for some extra $$. They also brought up a good point in
> that if I get a 337 to cover me "just in case," I'll need another 337
> to take it out if I sell the plane and want to keep the 496.
>
> If anyone in the northeast area has had better success, I'd be
> interested in a PIREP.
>
> Jay, If you're reading, you had it easy with Atlas!
>
> Marco
>

[Marco Leon]

Steve Foley wrote:
> Call Conrad at the Radio Shop in Worcester , MA (ORH).
>
> 508-757-6954
>
> Tell him I told you to call. It won't do you any good, but it may help me :)

I take it he won't do the install either. :)

[Kevin Clarke]

Steve Foley wrote:
> Call Conrad at the Radio Shop in Worcester , MA (ORH).
>
> 508-757-6954
>
> Tell him I told you to call. It won't do you any good, but it may help me :)
>
>

I should have used Conrad for my 430 upgrade. He's a good guy.

KC

[Jim[_11_]]

Download AC 43-210 from the FAA site.
This is the form for requesting a field approval. (an obstinate A&P would
probably say it needs a field approval)
I'm NOT saying one is required, but it I think it SHOULD result in a written
denial, which will be signed by an ASI with the reason for the denial.
c. Your field approval request may be denied due to the following reasons:

NOTE: If your field approval request is denied, the ASI will provide a
written response stating the reasons for the denial.

(1) The alteration or repair is a minor alteration or repair and requires
acceptable data, but does not need approved data.

(2) The alteration or repair is beyond the scope of a field approval.

(3) Some major alterations do not qualify for field approvals. The effect of
these alterations on a TC'd product may be so extensive that you would have
to apply for a new TC, amend the original TC, or apply for a Supplemental
Type Certificate (STC).

(4) The alteration or repair will result in an unsafe product.

d. After data approval has been issued or the ASI has indicated that the
alteration is going to be approved, an appropriately-rated person or agency
can perform the alteration or repair.

Take the denial to your A&P, have him call the ASI who signed the form.

It may or may not help. If nothing else, it's interesting reading.

Jim



"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Apparently, installation of the Airgizmo panel dock is quite the touchy
> subject up here in the Northeast. I know this has been a subject of a
> number of threads but I figured I'd relay my experience so far. Since I
> would like it integrated with my Garmin 430 and 340 audio panel (for
> the audio out), I'd really rather have a pro do it.
>
> First I contacted the local FSDO located on my home field (KFRG) and
> talked to the avionics guy to solicit his point of view. His view was
> that it was a VFR install and as such, it only needed a logbook
> entry--no 337. However, he stressed that all the FSDO's are different
> on this subject and I would need to contact the installer to get their
> FSDO's take. He recommended getting a 337 anyway just in case. Fair
> enough, makes sense to me.
>
> After contacting the local shops, I quickly realize that none of the
> Conn. shops will touch it and neither will the shops in Westshester or
> New Jersey. All their FSDO's are dead set against the install. Well,
> there goes the convenience of being local. An independent guy will do
> the install in Rhode Island but I am hesitant because he has not done
> any of these installs and at $70/hr, I don't feel like paying for his
> schooling. Islip Avionics in Long Island was just rude ("so, where's
> your paperwork on the thing? You got an STC? You talked to my FSDO?
> Tell me the name of the guy. I don't need his phone number I just want
> to see if you know the guy's name") and besides, they were $115/hr vs.
> $70 everywhere else. That was the closest I've been in a while to
> telling someone I don't know to f**k off.
>
> That leaves Pennsylvania as the closest. I have a quote from Penn
> Avionics and I'm trying to get a day to go there. They've done a number
> of these already and know exactly what I want and their prices are not
> bad. Their FSDO is OK with it as a logbook entry but they can do the
> field approval for some extra $$. They also brought up a good point in
> that if I get a 337 to cover me "just in case," I'll need another 337
> to take it out if I sell the plane and want to keep the 496.
>
> If anyone in the northeast area has had better success, I'd be
> interested in a PIREP.
>
> Jay, If you're reading, you had it easy with Atlas!
>
> Marco
>

[Newps]

Marco Leon wrote:


>
> That leaves Pennsylvania as the closest. I have a quote from Penn
> Avionics and I'm trying to get a day to go there. They've done a number
> of these already and know exactly what I want and their prices are not
> bad. Their FSDO is OK with it as a logbook entry but they can do the
> field approval for some extra $$. They also brought up a good point in
> that if I get a 337 to cover me "just in case," I'll need another 337
> to take it out if I sell the plane and want to keep the 496.

Unbelievable. It's a minor alteration and the mechanic told you that.
But if you want to give him some money he'll write it up as a major
alteration and send it in. By the way the 337's no longer go to the
local FSDO anymore. All 337's now get sent directly to OKC so who gives
a rats ass what your local FSDO thinks?

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, If you're reading, you had it easy with Atlas!

Well, you just say the word, Marco, and I'll be on the phone to Tony,
getting you set up for an installation at McCandless Aviation in
Waterloo...

You *were* looking for an excuse to come visit, weren't you?

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Marco Leon]

Newps wrote:
>
> Unbelievable. It's a minor alteration and the mechanic told you that.
> But if you want to give him some money he'll write it up as a major
> alteration and send it in. By the way the 337's no longer go to the
> local FSDO anymore. All 337's now get sent directly to OKC so who gives
> a rats ass what your local FSDO thinks?

Come to think of it, he was referring to the field approval as costing
unnecessary money as well saying that there was an hourly charge for
his guys to chase down the paperwork for the approval. He was of the
same opinion as you in that this was by no means a major alteration
while mentioning the removal aspect as well. Sorry if I was not clear.

Marco

[Marco Leon]

Jay Honeck wrote:
> > Jay, If you're reading, you had it easy with Atlas!
>
> Well, you just say the word, Marco, and I'll be on the phone to Tony,
> getting you set up for an installation at McCandless Aviation in
> Waterloo...
>
> You *were* looking for an excuse to come visit, weren't you?
>
> ;-)

You're the only place on my list to stay if I'm ever out your way! I'll
be sure to reserve the Blackbird suite weeks before I go (but I'll take
the Mustang suite in an emergency...)

Let's see...71 gallons each way according to the Jepp Flight
Planner...71x$4.20/gal = $298 x2= $600 for fuel...16 hours flight time.


Not bad. Let me talk to the wife...

Marco

[Ray Andraka]

Marco Leon wrote:
> Apparently, installation of the Airgizmo panel dock is quite the touchy
> subject up here in the Northeast. I know this has been a subject of a
> number of threads but I figured I'd relay my experience so far. Since I
> would like it integrated with my Garmin 430 and 340 audio panel (for
> the audio out), I'd really rather have a pro do it.
>
> First I contacted the local FSDO located on my home field (KFRG) and
> talked to the avionics guy to solicit his point of view. His view was
> that it was a VFR install and as such, it only needed a logbook
> entry--no 337. However, he stressed that all the FSDO's are different
> on this subject and I would need to contact the installer to get their
> FSDO's take. He recommended getting a 337 anyway just in case. Fair
> enough, makes sense to me.
>
> After contacting the local shops, I quickly realize that none of the
> Conn. shops will touch it and neither will the shops in Westshester or
> New Jersey. All their FSDO's are dead set against the install. Well,
> there goes the convenience of being local. An independent guy will do
> the install in Rhode Island but I am hesitant because he has not done
> any of these installs and at $70/hr, I don't feel like paying for his
> schooling. Islip Avionics in Long Island was just rude ("so, where's
> your paperwork on the thing? You got an STC? You talked to my FSDO?
> Tell me the name of the guy. I don't need his phone number I just want
> to see if you know the guy's name") and besides, they were $115/hr vs.
> $70 everywhere else. That was the closest I've been in a while to
> telling someone I don't know to f**k off.
>
> That leaves Pennsylvania as the closest. I have a quote from Penn
> Avionics and I'm trying to get a day to go there. They've done a number
> of these already and know exactly what I want and their prices are not
> bad. Their FSDO is OK with it as a logbook entry but they can do the
> field approval for some extra $$. They also brought up a good point in
> that if I get a 337 to cover me "just in case," I'll need another 337
> to take it out if I sell the plane and want to keep the 496.
>
> If anyone in the northeast area has had better success, I'd be
> interested in a PIREP.
>
> Jay, If you're reading, you had it easy with Atlas!
>
> Marco
>

I haven't installed one, don't even have a 396/496 yet, but I did some
asking around as well, and got about the same answers you got. Seems
the FSDO that serves Connecticut not only won't approve them, but will
ramp any plane he sees them in and tag it as an unapproved mod. His
issue is apparently with it being PVC it won't pass the burn test for
interior furnishings (I didn't know that applied to anything other than
the fabric, but that's beside the point). I'll bet the royalite panel
overlay that is factory original won't pass the burn test either and
will generate just as much toxic fumes if ignited as that air gizmo
will. One of the Connecticut shops said that they have made sheet metal
holders similar in appearance and function to the air-gizmo, and that
there is no problem getting those past the FSDO, but the plastic ones
won't fly. He suggested a RAM mount bolted to the panel (which I think
looks clunky) as an alternative that is considerably cheaper than making
a metal Air-gizmo.

[Doug Vetter]

Marco Leon wrote:
> That leaves Pennsylvania as the closest. I have a quote from Penn
> Avionics and I'm trying to get a day to go there. They've done a number
> of these already and know exactly what I want and their prices are not
> bad. Their FSDO is OK with it as a logbook entry but they can do the
> field approval for some extra $$. They also brought up a good point in
> that if I get a 337 to cover me "just in case," I'll need another 337
> to take it out if I sell the plane and want to keep the 496.

Marco,

I know Peter well. He does all the avionics work on our airplane.
If he says it can be done, it will be done properly.

Tell him I sent you.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------

[Mike Spera]

>
> If anyone in the northeast area has had better success, I'd be
> interested in a PIREP.
>

Although I am not in the Northeast, here is another datapoint. The folks
here at JA Air Center (Northeast Illinois - DPA) say they have done
several installations. Our local FSDO is about 1 block away from their
facility. If I recall, they were talking logbook entry and nothing more.
You might give them a call to see what they are doing. These guys are
usually pretty "by the book" and work very closely with their FSDO.

I have given this a lot of thought myself. I am concerned about whether
I will be able ot SEE the thing way across the panel. The screen is hard
enough to see on the yoke mount. At 51, the Mk I eyeballs (2 each) are
beginning to need reading glasses. On the yoke, it is a bit of a
challenge to see the small details. Across the panel with the engine
running, in light-moderate bumps, and on instruments, I really don't
know how I would be able to use it. That is also REALLY outside of my
scan. In those conditions, the yoke mount appears to be a better bet.

Any of you PPSEL - IA folks use one in actual from the dock?

Good Luck,
Mike

[Steve Foley[_2_]]

"Marco Leon" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Steve Foley wrote:
>> Call Conrad at the Radio Shop in Worcester , MA (ORH).
>>
>> 508-757-6954
>>
>> Tell him I told you to call. It won't do you any good, but it may help me
>> :)
>
> I take it he won't do the install either. :)
>

I have no idea if he'll install it or not. I use him for a transponder check
every two years.

I doubt he'll give you a discount for knowing me. My next time, I may get
one for directing business his way.

[Marco Leon]

Mike Spera wrote:
> [snip]
> I have given this a lot of thought myself. I am concerned about whether
> I will be able ot SEE the thing way across the panel. The screen is hard
> enough to see on the yoke mount. At 51, the Mk I eyeballs (2 each) are
> beginning to need reading glasses. On the yoke, it is a bit of a
> challenge to see the small details. Across the panel with the engine
> running, in light-moderate bumps, and on instruments, I really don't
> know how I would be able to use it. That is also REALLY outside of my
> scan. In those conditions, the yoke mount appears to be a better bet.

Viewing it concerns me too but a little differently. I've noticed that
for some reason, the terrain detail on the 496 gets lost when viewing
the screen from the left at the slightest offset angle and not at all
from the right. Virtually all the other detail (like airspace and field
values) can be seen from the left however. Luckily, the terrain
warnings can be seen OK so it's more of a cosmetic issue but annoying
nonetheless. Anyone else notice this?

I'll install the angled dock if it get too annoying but I'd rather not.

Marco

[Marco Leon]

Ray Andraka wrote:
>Seems the FSDO that serves Connecticut not only won't approve them, but will
> ramp any plane he sees them in and tag it as an unapproved mod. His
> issue is apparently with it being PVC it won't pass the burn test for
> interior furnishings (I didn't know that applied to anything other than
> the fabric, but that's beside the point). I'll bet the royalite panel
> overlay that is factory original won't pass the burn test either and
> will generate just as much toxic fumes if ignited as that air gizmo
> will. One of the Connecticut shops said that they have made sheet metal
> holders similar in appearance and function to the air-gizmo, and that
> there is no problem getting those past the FSDO, but the plastic ones
> won't fly. He suggested a RAM mount bolted to the panel (which I think
> looks clunky) as an alternative that is considerably cheaper than making
> a metal Air-gizmo.

Thanks Ray, that's good to know. I bet this dude will have a field day
during next year's AOPA Convention. Sounds like he's made it his own
little mission--a true FAA'er. And you're right, all that plastic
around my Warrior's panel would suffer the same fate in the event of a
fire.

I got ramp-checked during my first solo x-country so I should be good
for 20 years or so ;)

Marco

[Mike Granby]

Field approvals are 100% discretionary. They can deny them on the basis
that they don't feel like it, if that's what they want to do. And
there's nothing you can do about it.

[Newps]

Mike Granby wrote:
> Field approvals are 100% discretionary. They can deny them on the basis
> that they don't feel like it, if that's what they want to do.


Hogwash.


And
> there's nothing you can do about it.
>

FSDO is not in the loop anymore as all field approvals go right to OKC now.

[Mike Granby]

Newps wrote:

> Hogwash

I disagree. If the FSDO don't want to issue the Field Approval, you
have no further recourse, except to try and get it through a different
FSDO.

> FSDO is not in the loop anymore as
> all field approvals go right to OKC now.

Nonsense. I got a field approval last year on a Boom Beam, and it was
most certainly sent to the FSDO. The submission goes to the FSDO, and
then perhaps to the ACO if it's particular complicated, but it's still
the FSDO that controls the process. Now, the completed 337s go straight
to OK City, but that's something else entirely.

See...

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/field_approvals/field_approv_proc/

[Tri-Pacer]

>>
>
> FSDO is not in the loop anymore as all field approvals go right to OKC
> now.

Really ???? What FSDO do you work under?

I still send my field approvals to my PMI and he stamps them and sends them
back to me.

When I return the plane to service I send the signed 337 to OKC per the
change to appendix B part 43.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
A&P IA

[Newps]

Mike Granby wrote:
> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>Hogwash
>
>
> I disagree. If the FSDO don't want to issue the Field Approval, you
> have no further recourse, except to try and get it through a different
> FSDO.

You miss the point. It doesn't need a field approval in the first
place. Find a mechanic with some balls.


>
>
>>FSDO is not in the loop anymore as
>>all field approvals go right to OKC now.
>
>
> Nonsense. I got a field approval last year on a Boom Beam,


Yes, last year. As of the last few weeks local FSDO's are out of the
loop. All 337's go to OKC now and are not reviewed for airworthiness.



and it was
> most certainly sent to the FSDO. The submission goes to the FSDO, and
> then perhaps to the ACO if it's particular complicated, but it's still
> the FSDO that controls the process. Now, the completed 337s go straight
> to OK City, but that's something else entirely.

FSDO is completely out of the picture. Your options are to get a
mechanic who knows the regs and realizes an Air Gizmo is not now and not
ever something that needs a field approval. For something that does
need approval you can either submit it to the FAA in OKC and they will
get around to it when they get around to it. This could take years.
Another option is to hire a DER to provide your mechanic with the
required data. Either way the local FSDO doesn't have thing one to say
about it.

[Newps]

Tri-Pacer wrote:

>>FSDO is not in the loop anymore as all field approvals go right to OKC
>>now.
>
>
> Really ???? What FSDO do you work under?

The administrative policy has changed. This is really just an extension
of the changes that took place a few years ago when everybody was
whining about how hard it was to get field approvals.

[Mike Granby]

Newps wrote:

> Yes, last year. As of the last few weeks local FSDO's
> are out of the loop. All 337's go to OKC now and are
> not reviewed for airworthiness.

Can you provide a citation for this, pls? It seems odd that the OP is
still having discussions with avionics shop about getting field
approvals when the procedure has changed. They obviously don't know
about it...

[Newps]

Tri-Pacer wrote:


>
> Really ???? What FSDO do you work under?


Here's some discussion of this subject from the Beech Owners email list.



BB, I believe it has *always* been at the IA's discretion to make
major alterations.

The rub is that major alterations require approved data. The IA
signature on a Form 337 means that the IA has inspected the
alteration and found that it conforms with the approved data
referenced in the Form 337. The IA has no authority to approve the
data -- only an FAA employee or DER can do that.

I suspect what's going on here is that FSDO folks are getting out of
the data approval business, and that all alterations for which
approved data does not already exist (e.g., STC) will require hiring
a DER to approve the data. Essentially, approval of data will become
something you pay for instead of getting free. (Nothing's free, but
you know what I mean.)

IMHO the loss of the FSDO proofreading function for Form 337s is no
loss at all. Hopefully IA's are smart enough to figure out how to
fill out a Form 337 properly without help from the FAA. (Somehow, I
don't think safety is improved materially when a FSDO inspector kicks
back a Form 337 for a sun visor installation because it doesn't have
Instructions for Continuing Airworthiness in the proper 18-item format.)

Maybe having to hire a DER for what amounts to a field approval is
not such a bad idea. The DER will charge a fee for his services, but
at least it won't be a guaranteed "no" (which is pretty much what
most FSDOs have been doing on field approval requests in recent years).

In my view, the more maintenance- and certification-related functions
that can be transferred from FAA to the private sector (designees,
etc.), the better. They'll cost money, but at least they'll get done.

(No, I'm not in favor of privatizing ATC. <g>)

At 06:39 PM 1/7/2007, Bob wrote:

>Since the FSDO has been eliminated, could it then be construed as
>at the signatory IA's discretion to make major alterations?
>
>BB:
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "carmine" <carminefp at comcast.net>
>To: "Beech-Owners at Beechcraft. Org" <beech-owners at beechcraft.org>
>Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 5:48 PM
>Subject: B: 337
>
>
>Attended an IA seminar this weekend here in the Seattle area and the
>FSDO people made it very clear that 337's go toOklahoma and not to
>them. They will accept those 337's that have a cover letter asking
>if it's correct and acceptable. They said that Oklahoma will not be
>critiquing them at all. Mentioned in the past they found errors in
>25 to 50 percent of those submitted locally in any given year.



Cy, where did you get that impression? The change to Part 43
Appendix B which calls for Form 337s to be sent directly to OKC
instead of to the local FSDO makes no distinction between 337s for
major repairs and major alterations. All 337s are to be sent
directly to OKC after signed off by the inspecting IA.

As always, the IA may only sign the 337 if it references approved
data. If the data is not approved per STC or something similar,
approval of the data must be secured (from the FAA or a DER) *before*
the IA signs the 337.

Once the IA signs the 337, it now gets submitted directly to
OKC. The FAA recently unveiled a new system whereby 337s may be
filled out online and submitted electronically to OKC, which sounds
to me like a huge improvement (at least in terms of 337s getting lost
in the system and never showing up in the aircraft records at OKC).

At 08:08 PM 1/7/2007, cgalley wrote:
>I believe these 337s are only for repairs not alterations.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bob" <parair at ca.rr.com>
>To: <beech-owners at beechcraft.org>
>Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:39 PM
>Subject: B: Re: 337
>
>
>
>Since the FSDO has been eliminated, could it then be construed as at the
>signatory IA's discretion to make major alterations?




Cy, an IA has always been able to approve a major alteration. He has
never been able to approve the data for a major alteration -- only an
FAA employee or DER can do that. Approval of data by the FAA or a
DER must be done BEFORE the IA signs off the 337, not after. I think
we have a terminology problem here. A major repair or major
alteration requires two approvals -- approval of the data and
approval of the work. An IA has never been permitted to do the
former, and has always been permitted to do the latter. There is no
change in that regard. The only purpose for the FSDO to look at a
Form 337 *after* the IA signs it (approving the work) is for
proofreading purposes, not approval purposes. Under the new rule,
FSDOs are getting out of the proofreading business. --Mike

At 08:35 PM 1/7/2007, cgalley wrote:
>But the IA can't approve an alteration. Maybe the person that said
you have
>to "buy" an alteration thru a DER or DAR is right.

[Mike Granby]

> BB, I believe it has *always* been at the IA's discretion
> to make major alterations. The rub is that major alterations
> require approved data.

Well, quite. If the alteration has approved data (eg. an STC) then the
IA can sign the 337, and he then sends it straight to OK City. But if
he merely has acceptable data, the most common route open to him is a
Field Approval whereby he sends that data with a 337 to the FSDO, and
gets them to turn that into approved data by stamping it and signing
the magic box. The IA can then sign the form after completion, and send
it off to OK City for filing. But that still means that the FSDO is
involved in the Field Approval process. Do you still assert the Field
Approvals do not involve a FSDO and go straight to OK City???

[Newps]

Mike Granby wrote:

> Newps wrote:
>
>
>>Yes, last year. As of the last few weeks local FSDO's
>>are out of the loop. All 337's go to OKC now and are
>>not reviewed for airworthiness.
>
>
> Can you provide a citation for this, pls? It seems odd that the OP is
> still having discussions with avionics shop about getting field
> approvals when the procedure has changed. They obviously don't know
> about it...
>

Well hey, it's the Government. The memo probably hasn't made it all
around the country yet.

[Newps]

Mike Granby wrote:

>>BB, I believe it has *always* been at the IA's discretion
>>to make major alterations. The rub is that major alterations
>>require approved data.
>
>
> Well, quite. If the alteration has approved data (eg. an STC) then the
> IA can sign the 337, and he then sends it straight to OK City. But if
> he merely has acceptable data, the most common route open to him is a
> Field Approval whereby he sends that data with a 337 to the FSDO, and
> gets them to turn that into approved data by stamping it and signing
> the magic box. The IA can then sign the form after completion, and send
> it off to OK City for filing. But that still means that the FSDO is
> involved in the Field Approval process. Do you still assert the Field
> Approvals do not involve a FSDO and go straight to OK City???

Yes, the FSDO's are being directed not to approve data unless it's
something that's pretty simple, stuff that is probably a minor
alteration in the first place. What they really seem to be saying is we
don't have the expertise in the field anymore so send it to our
engineers in OKC or get your own DER. Which I think in the end is good.
This should create a demand for DER's which will mean more of them and
known stable prices.

[Mike Spera]

Folks,

Help me understand the most basic alteration/modification/addition. This
"simple" category. Some conclude this device fits that category.

If my IA determines that screwing a bit of plastic onto the instrument
panel (using the existing mounting rails with approved hardware)
constitutes nothing more than a minor alteration, can he simply make a
logbook entry and sign it off? What other paperwork must he execute, if any?

Once done, what happens wan an FAA critter with an attitude problem at
some remote airport where I am not based comes along, peeps in the
window and says "where is your paperwork for this thing"? I don't carry
my logbooks. What do the regs say I have to do (produce) right there and
then? Providing I follow the rules (which you just told me), what can
the FAA person do according to the regs?

Where possible, please point me to the chapter and verse. Where
impossible, please let me know why you reached a conclusion where the
regs are nonexistent or vague.

Thanks,
Mike

[Jay Honeck]

> If my IA determines that screwing a bit of plastic onto the instrument
> panel (using the existing mounting rails with approved hardware)
> constitutes nothing more than a minor alteration, can he simply make a
> logbook entry and sign it off? What other paperwork must he execute, if any?

Mike, I can't quote you chapter and verse -- but I know a guy who
*can*. Call Tony, at McCandless Aviation in Waterloo, Iowa. He's the
head of their avionics shop, and he did my installation with a logbook
entry. His number is 319-232-1234

> Once done, what happens wan an FAA critter with an attitude problem at
> some remote airport where I am not based comes along, peeps in the
> window and says "where is your paperwork for this thing"?

I've only been ramp-checked once, but the FAA dude was only concerned
about your paperwork (pilot certificate, medical) and the aircraft's
basic paperwork (airworthiness cert, etc.). At no time did the guy
even look at the panel, other than when he looked in the plane at me
and Mary.

I have a hard time imagining a situation where an inspector starts
asking for STC and field approval paperwork on stuff like the AirGizmo.
Hell, it would take me three hours just to show him the paperwork on
all the other mods on my plane. (Let's see, wing tips, wing fillets,
landing lights, flap gaps, aileron gaps, fancy pants...shoot, I'm up to
three hours already!)

IMO, you'd have to really pee in someone's Wheaties to get ramp checked
THAT hard.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Mike Spera wrote:

>
> If my IA determines that screwing a bit of plastic onto the instrument
> panel (using the existing mounting rails with approved hardware)
> constitutes nothing more than a minor alteration, can he simply make a
> logbook entry and sign it off?


That is, by definition, a minor alteration. And that is all that is
required for a minor alteration.


What other paperwork must he execute, if
> any?

None.



>
> Once done, what happens wan an FAA critter with an attitude problem at
> some remote airport where I am not based comes along, peeps in the
> window and says "where is your paperwork for this thing"?

Nothing happens. If he asks tell them your mechanic signed it off as a
minor alteration. If he wants to look at the loogbooks the regs say
they have to contact you and you two make an appointment and he can look
at the logs. I would think that if you have an electronic version, I
scan all mine into PDF's, you could just email them over there.



I don't carry
> my logbooks. What do the regs say I have to do (produce) right there and
> then?


Nuthin', relating to the maintenence. For a ramp check you have to have
the AROW, just what you learned to be a private pilot.



Providing I follow the rules (which you just told me), what can
> the FAA person do according to the regs?



See above. And under no circumstances can he "ground" your plane. He
can hang a tag on there stating he thinks something isn't airworthy.
The most famous case is the FSDO inspector who did that on a Mooney with
a Q Tip prop. But you determine if the plane is airworthy. Your
mechanic is the one who gets to decide if the Air Gizmo is a minor
alteration not the FAA. He may ask the FAA for guidance but when you
read the mechanics bible not in a million years is the Gizmo a major
alteration. Any IA who says so should lose his IA priveleges.

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> I've only been ramp-checked once, but the FAA dude was only concerned
> about your paperwork (pilot certificate, medical) and the aircraft's
> basic paperwork (airworthiness cert, etc.). At no time did the guy
> even look at the panel, other than when he looked in the plane at me
> and Mary.


Along those lines find a time when the FAA is running the PACE program.
This is where your local FSDO shows up at your airport and you can
bring your plane and logs to them for them to inspect and they will tell
you if they find anything they consider unairworthy or maybe a little
suspicious. They will also inspect the plane and tell you what they
think and you can also have the FSDO fly with you for an hour or so,
basically give you a mini checkride. It's all nonadversarial. You can
ignore what they say and fly away if you want but it's also a way to
meet these people and find out they're just regular people. I did all
that and pointed out all the stuff on my plane that comes up from time
to time in these discussions.

[Mike Granby]

Newps wrote:

> The memo probably hasn't made it all around the country yet.

Here it is...

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2006_register&docid=fr04oc06-4

It only changes Part 43, Appendix B, paragraph (a)(3) which is
concerned with the disposition of completed Form 337s after the
airplane has been approved for return to service. It doesn't change the
field approval process, in which the FSDO is still involved. Now, it
may well be that FSDOs are more careful about the scope of things they
can approved, and indeed, as you point out, they should not be
generated data that requires a DERs involvement, but that is a
different issue. Also, none of this means that Field Approvals now go
to OK City. And, Field Approvals remain 100% discretionary, as per my
original posting, so please withdraw your "Hogwash" comment.