FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS

[Gig 601XL Builder]

FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna 172's
instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to mount it. The
parts-panel dock and connective wiring-needed to mount your portable GPS
would either no longer be available or be too expensive to buy. The FAA's
proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to produce a replacement or
modification part if they know (or should know) the part would end up
installed in a certified aircraft-that is unless they obtain production
approval from the agency. But that costs tens of thousands of dollars,
something many companies can't afford. While AOPA agrees production approval
is necessary for critical parts like connecting rods and cylinders, it isn't
needed for non-critical parts like a portable GPS panel dock or traffic
detector that enhance pilot safety. See AOPA Online.

[Steve Foley]

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

>The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to produce a
>replacement or modification part if they know (or should know) the part
>would end up installed in a certified aircraft-that is unless they obtain
>production approval from the agency. But that costs tens of thousands of
>dollars,

I guess wire ties and Velcro are going to skyrocket.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:

> FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
> Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna
> 172's instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to
> mount it. The parts-panel dock and connective wiring-needed to mount
> your portable GPS would either no longer be available or be too
> expensive to buy.
>
Perhaps I'm missing something, here. What is there to buy besides a sheet
of stock aluminum and a few screws? The "wiring" comes with the portable
GPS in the way of the remote antenna lead and power connector.

Neil

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:
>
>> FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
>> Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna
>> 172's instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to
>> mount it. The parts-panel dock and connective wiring-needed to mount
>> your portable GPS would either no longer be available or be too
>> expensive to buy.
>>
> Perhaps I'm missing something, here. What is there to buy besides a
> sheet of stock aluminum and a few screws? The "wiring" comes with the
> portable GPS in the way of the remote antenna lead and power
> connector.
>
> Neil


I think the big thingis they are going to go after the Air Gizmo panel dock.

http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/list.asp?search_type=2&search_text=Air+Gizmos

I think I'm going to go ahead and order mine for the homebuilt I'm building.

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:42:52 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>> The "wiring" comes with the portable GPS in the way of the remote
>> antenna lead and power connector.
>>
>> Neil
>
>
>I think the big thingis they are going to go after the Air Gizmo panel dock.
>
>http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/list.asp?search_type=2&search_text=Air+Gizmos

The antenna and power cables slide through prefabricated
"keyholes" in the back of the unit, which keeps the connectors
from slipping back into the panel when the unit is removed.

From what is written above, it would seem that there is no wiring
involved, other than threading the cables behind the panel. That does
have the potential to foul the control linkage I suppose.

[Bill Denton]

Typically, in these types of installations, the power lead is "hard wired"
into the aircraft's electrical system...



"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:42:52 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
> >> Neil Gould wrote:
> >>
> >> The "wiring" comes with the portable GPS in the way of the remote
> >> antenna lead and power connector.
> >>
> >> Neil
> >
> >
> >I think the big thingis they are going to go after the Air Gizmo panel
dock.
> >
>
>http://www.gulf-coast-avionics.com/list.asp?search_type=2&search_text=Air+G
izmos
>
> The antenna and power cables slide through prefabricated
> "keyholes" in the back of the unit, which keeps the connectors
> from slipping back into the panel when the unit is removed.
>
> From what is written above, it would seem that there is no wiring
> involved, other than threading the cables behind the panel. That does
> have the potential to foul the control linkage I suppose.
>

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:42:52 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>
>>> The "wiring" comes with the portable GPS in the way of the remote
>>> antenna lead and power connector.
>>>
>>> Neil
>>
>>
>> I think the big thingis they are going to go after the Air Gizmo
>> panel dock.
>>
>> http://www.gulf-coast-
>> avionics.com/list.asp?search_type=2&search_text=Air+Gizmos
>
> The antenna and power cables slide through prefabricated
> "keyholes" in the back of the unit, which keeps the connectors
> from slipping back into the panel when the unit is removed.
>
> From what is written above, it would seem that there is no wiring
> involved, other than threading the cables behind the panel. That does
> have the potential to foul the control linkage I suppose.

The original article specificly said,

"The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to produce a
replacement or
modification part if they know (or should know) the part would end up
installed in a certified aircraft-that is unless they obtain production
approval from the agency."

That has got to be talking about the Air Gizmo without actually saying Air
Gizmo.

[Jay Honeck]

> FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
> Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna 172's
> instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to mount it.

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

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

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

[Jim Macklin]

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


"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. net...
| Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
posted:
|
| > FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
| > Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your
old Cessna
| > 172's instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you
won't be able to
| > mount it. The parts-panel dock and connective
wiring-needed to mount
| > your portable GPS would either no longer be available or
be too
| > expensive to buy.
| >
| Perhaps I'm missing something, here. What is there to buy
besides a sheet
| of stock aluminum and a few screws? The "wiring" comes
with the portable
| GPS in the way of the remote antenna lead and power
connector.
|
| Neil
|
|

[Steve Foley]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to produce a
> replacement or modification part if they know (or should know) the part
> would end up installed in a certified aircraft-that is unless they obtain
> production approval from the agency.

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

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> posted:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:42:52 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The "wiring" comes with the portable GPS in the way of the remote
>>>> antenna lead and power connector.
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the big thingis they are going to go after the Air Gizmo
>>> panel dock.
>>>
>>> http://www.gulf-coast-
>>> avionics.com/list.asp?search_type=2&search_text=Air+Gizmos
>>
>> The antenna and power cables slide through prefabricated
>> "keyholes" in the back of the unit, which keeps the connectors
>> from slipping back into the panel when the unit is removed.
>>
>> From what is written above, it would seem that there is no wiring
>> involved, other than threading the cables behind the panel. That
>> does have the potential to foul the control linkage I suppose.
>
> The original article specificly said,
>
> "The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to
> produce a replacement or
> modification part if they know (or should know) the part would end up
> installed in a certified aircraft-that is unless they obtain
> production approval from the agency."
>
> That has got to be talking about the Air Gizmo without actually
> saying Air Gizmo.
>
It would be nice to know the thinking behind this move. The FAA could be
concerned that something done by the user might affect the qualifications
for certification. Who knows?

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 19:23:35 GMT, "Bill Denton"
> wrote in
>:

>Typically, in these types of installations, the power lead is "hard wired"
>into the aircraft's electrical system...

By whom?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:50:04 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:42:52 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> >:
>>
>>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The "wiring" comes with the portable GPS in the way of the remote
>>>> antenna lead and power connector.
>>>>
>>>> Neil
>>>
>>>
>>> I think the big thingis they are going to go after the Air Gizmo
>>> panel dock.
>>>
>>> http://www.gulf-coast-
>>> avionics.com/list.asp?search_type=2&search_text=Air+Gizmos
>>
>> The antenna and power cables slide through prefabricated
>> "keyholes" in the back of the unit, which keeps the connectors
>> from slipping back into the panel when the unit is removed.
>>
>> From what is written above, it would seem that there is no wiring
>> involved, other than threading the cables behind the panel. That does
>> have the potential to foul the control linkage I suppose.
>
>The original article specificly said,
>
>"The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to produce a
>replacement or
>modification part if they know (or should know) the part would end up
>installed in a certified aircraft-that is unless they obtain production
>approval from the agency."
>
>That has got to be talking about the Air Gizmo without actually saying Air
>Gizmo.
>

I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how your followup relates to what
I wrote?

[Larry Dighera]

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

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


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

[Larry Dighera]

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

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

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

[Jim Logajan]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
> Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna
> 172's instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to
> mount it.

Here's the proposed rule changes (section 21.9 is on page 31 of the 40 page
PDF document):

http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/416626.pdf

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 13:50:04 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> >:
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2 Feb 2007 09:42:52 -0600, "Gig 601XL Builder"
>>> <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>>> >:
>>>
>>>>> Neil Gould wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The "wiring" comes with the portable GPS in the way of the remote
>>>>> antenna lead and power connector.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the big thingis they are going to go after the Air Gizmo
>>>> panel dock.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.gulf-coast-
>>>> avionics.com/list.asp?search_type=2&search_text=Air+Gizmos
>>>
>>> The antenna and power cables slide through prefabricated
>>> "keyholes" in the back of the unit, which keeps the connectors
>>> from slipping back into the panel when the unit is removed.
>>>
>>> From what is written above, it would seem that there is no wiring
>>> involved, other than threading the cables behind the panel. That
>>> does have the potential to foul the control linkage I suppose.
>>
>> The original article specificly said,
>>
>> "The FAA's proposal would make it illegal for manufacturers to
>> produce a replacement or
>> modification part if they know (or should know) the part would end up
>> installed in a certified aircraft-that is unless they obtain
>> production approval from the agency."
>>
>> That has got to be talking about the Air Gizmo without actually
>> saying Air Gizmo.
>>
>
> I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how your followup relates to what
> I wrote?

Because you brought up wiring that had little to do with the original post.
I requoted the part of the article that dealt with, what I beleive, is the
Air Gizmo.

[Bill Denton]

From the document:


§ 21.9 Replacement and modification parts.

(b) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section,
a person who produces a replacement or modification part for sale may not
represent that part as suitable for installation on a type-certificated
product.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

From http://www.airgizmos.com/index.asp


All products on this site are intended for use on experimental aircraft.
Installation in a production aircraft may require an FAA field approval.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------

From this, it might be reasonable to conclude that the AirGizmos units will
still be okay for use in Experimental aircraft.

However, the issue of SLSA's may still need to be clarified.





"Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
> > FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
> > Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna
> > 172's instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to
> > mount it.
>
> Here's the proposed rule changes (section 21.9 is on page 31 of the 40
page
> PDF document):
>
> http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/416626.pdf
>

[Rip]

Bill Denton wrote:
> From the document:
>
>
> § 21.9 Replacement and modification parts.
>
> (b) Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(4) of this section,
> a person who produces a replacement or modification part for sale may not
> represent that part as suitable for installation on a type-certificated
> product.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> From http://www.airgizmos.com/index.asp
>
>
> All products on this site are intended for use on experimental aircraft.
> Installation in a production aircraft may require an FAA field approval.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> From this, it might be reasonable to conclude that the AirGizmos units will
> still be okay for use in Experimental aircraft.
>
> However, the issue of SLSA's may still need to be clarified.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jim Logajan" > wrote in message
> .. .
>
>>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>>FAA MAY TAKE AWAY PANEL-MOUNT OPTION FOR PORTABLE GPS
>>>Think your portable GPS would work great mounted to your old Cessna
>>>172's instrument panel? If the FAA has its way, you won't be able to
>>>mount it.
>>
>>Here's the proposed rule changes (section 21.9 is on page 31 of the 40
>
> page
>
>>PDF document):
>>
>>http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p87/416626.pdf
>>
>
>
>
Oh for Christ's sake. An experimental is just that. EXPERIMENTAL! You
can install a crystal ball without any approval whatever. You just have
to fly off the design.

Rip

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
>> They don't make 'laws', so how can they make something 'illegal'.
>
> The OP meant to say, a violation of regulations, not illegal, I think.

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

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

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

[Jay Honeck]

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

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

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

[Larry Dighera]

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

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>>
>>> They don't make 'laws', so how can they make something 'illegal'.
>>
>> The OP meant to say, a violation of regulations, not illegal, I think.
>
>You've mentioned this distinction at least a couple times recently, but I'm
>thinking it's a lot less black & white than I'd like it to be.
>
>When you have such a thing as an "administrative law judge" and Congress
>forfeiting (gladly?) to the Executive branch broad regulatory power,
>regulations begin to carry the weight of "law" and "violation of
>regulations" becomes essentially the same thing as "illegal."

We disagree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[LWG]

This is absolutely right. And administrative regulations can be integrated
with fines and imprisonment. Look at EPA and OSHA, for example.

Here we are talking about a federal forum, but the unchecked growth of
administrative agencies at all levels, including the state, has allowed our
government to run amuck.

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

[Paul Tomblin]

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

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


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

[Vaughn Simon]

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

I think you are overstating your case just a bit, since it would presumably
only require removal of the offending bit to make the plane airworthy again.
It's not as if you have to scrap the airframe.


Vaughn

[John T]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message

>
> We disagree.

Perhaps, but I don't think by much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Newps]

Vaughn Simon wrote:

> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>They can also declare that your plane with this installation is no longer
>>airworthy, which would mean you've just lost most if not all of the value
>>of your airplane. That seems like a pretty strong disincentive.
>
>
> I think you are overstating your case just a bit,




A bit? It's a gross misstatement.