PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom?

[One's Too Many]

Anyone here have the PS Engineering PM3000 stereo 4-place intercom?

Is it really worth $200 more than the comparable Flightcom 403?

How well does it sound with music input from an iPod?

It's TSO'ed, so my A&P/IA is having much less heartburn about
installing it... seems the Houston FSDO has been on a rampage against
mechanics installing non-TSO'ed intercoms in spamcans and calling it a
minor alteration.

[RST Engineering]

Seems like some FSDO is always on a rampage...of COURSE an intercom is a
minor alteration. Several FAA publications are quite explicit on what is
major and what is minor, and a publication out of Ok City trumps the Houston
FSDO. Your FSDO folks have their panties in a wad and are way off base.

As a matter of fact, there is nothing in a part 91 aircraft that HAS to be
TSOd, including transponders, altitude encoders, and ELTs. Read the
requirements. They have to MEET the TSO spec, but they don't have to be
themselves TSOd.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford



seems the Houston FSDO has been on a rampage against
> mechanics installing non-TSO'ed intercoms in spamcans and calling it a
> minor alteration.
>

[One's Too Many]

You're preaching to the choir here... I'm not an A&P but am in whole-
hearted agreement that an intercom ought be a minor alteration, but
the poor A&P's are under duress of the local FSDO interpretations of
the regs and there's not much the mechanics can do to challenge that
without invoking the ire of their local FSDO inspectors with whom they
must maintain a working relationship. Seems like the aircraft
maintenance world of today has become a very, very, very different
world from what it used to be back in the mid 1990's when I first
began flying and a lot more common sense prevailed. Practically
everything you might wish to do to an airplane has now suddenly become
a major alteration no matter what, and every minor part, practically
right down to even the "decorative furnishings" in the cockpit must
now be PMA'ed, TSO'ed, STC'ed, or factory original parts only, and
getting any kind of field approval is a crap shoot.

I sure wish I could afford to build an experimental and be relatively
free from such unreasonableness.

[B A R R Y]

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 15:26:56 -0700, One's Too Many
> wrote:

> Practically
>everything you might wish to do to an airplane has now suddenly become
>a major alteration no matter what, and every minor part, practically
>right down to even the "decorative furnishings" in the cockpit must
>now be PMA'ed, TSO'ed, STC'ed, or factory original parts only, and
>getting any kind of field approval is a crap shoot.

I've heard of clamp-on Ram mounts for Garmin 196's being cited as
major mods. No, I'm not confusing it with the Air Gismo dock where a
hole is cut, but a mount clamped to a support.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 4:50 pm, "RST Engineering" > wrote:
> Seems like some FSDO is always on a rampage...of COURSE an intercom is a
> minor alteration. Several FAA publications are quite explicit on what is
> major and what is minor, and a publication out of Ok City trumps the Houston
> FSDO. Your FSDO folks have their panties in a wad and are way off base.
>
> As a matter of fact, there is nothing in a part 91 aircraft that HAS to be
> TSOd, including transponders, altitude encoders, and ELTs. Read the
> requirements. They have to MEET the TSO spec, but they don't have to be
> themselves TSOd.
>
> Jim
>
> --
> "If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
> --Henry Ford
>
> seems the Houston FSDO has been on a rampage against
>
> > mechanics installing non-TSO'ed intercoms in spamcans and calling it a
> > minor alteration.


Their reply about the TSO, "how can you prove that the device/
appliance meets the specification? Show me the data.".

They're making up their own rules where I am.

I've asked OKC regulation questions, but they bounce it back to me and
tell me to ask my local FSDO. How do you get a legitimate
interpretation on a regulation if you can't get past your local
office? Where's Bill O'Brien when you need him?


I'd love to get into it in a public forum, but I'm in the process of
fighting a battle with them which is obvious that they're clearly
wrong, but won't admit it.
And, the Internet has ears and I'm afraid of what they would put me
through if they found out I was bashing them.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 5:26 pm, One's Too Many > wrote:
> You're preaching to the choir here... I'm not an A&P but am in whole-
> hearted agreement that an intercom ought be a minor alteration, but
> the poor A&P's are under duress of the local FSDO interpretations of
> the regs and there's not much the mechanics can do to challenge that
> without invoking the ire of their local FSDO inspectors with whom they
> must maintain a working relationship. Seems like the aircraft
> maintenance world of today has become a very, very, very different
> world from what it used to be back in the mid 1990's when I first
> began flying and a lot more common sense prevailed. Practically
> everything you might wish to do to an airplane has now suddenly become
> a major alteration no matter what, and every minor part, practically
> right down to even the "decorative furnishings" in the cockpit must
> now be PMA'ed, TSO'ed, STC'ed, or factory original parts only, and
> getting any kind of field approval is a crap shoot.
>
> I sure wish I could afford to build an experimental and be relatively
> free from such unreasonableness.

It's up to the A&P to decide if the modification is a major or minor
modification. Why does the FSDO even need to know anything the
installation of a component?
If it doesn't comply with with the requirements of Part 43 appdx A,
it's a minor thing. Just log it and be on your way.
We tend to over regulate ourselves by hearsay and rumors. Just because
one person or group of people happen to be 337 crazy, doesn't mean
that we all need to be.
I think that FSDOs accept too many 337's for minor modifications/
alterations. They create monsters out of these A&P's and IA's that are
337 happy.
If they bounced back 337's that were minor alterations, it would help
everyone out.

Good luck

[Mike Isaksen]

> wrote ...
> It's up to the A&P to decide if the modification is a major or minor
> modification. Why does the FSDO even need to know anything the
> installation of a component?

I've found the problems not with the A&P installing, but with a new (to the
plane) IA a few years later who has a cow about signing it off. Those old
337's are like a "baby blanket" for most IAs.

[One's Too Many]

The mechanics around here are getting raked over the coals for not
obtaining official determination first beforehand on whether a job is
a minor repair/alteration to grant them permission to log it as such.
They're getting micromanaged to death. My own A&P/IA got threatened
with certificate action and had to take some remedial training
recently because of this. Apparently an IA's authority to make
determination if a repair or alteration is major or minor has been
eroded away to nothingness and whatever the regs and advisory
circulars say has now been trumped by local inspectors' own
interpretation instead. I really don't even want to get started into
the "unapproved parts" issue since lately it seems like even obvious
standard parts like mil-spec AN nuts and bolts are suddenly becoming
in danger of being declared unapproved if you can't prove you bought
them them from a Cessna/Beech/whatever parts dealer. But, in the case
of the Flightcom intercom I originally wanted, since it is not PMA'd,
TSO'd or STC'd therefore it is declared to be an "unapproved part" and
hence illegal to install on a certificated airplane as an aftermarket
upgrade. I guess the extra $200 the PSE intercom costs must be worth
it since it should be considered the hassle-avoidance fee.

[One's Too Many]

On Aug 3, 6:27 pm, " > wrote:
>
> It's up to the A&P to decide if the modification is a major or minor
> modification.

I thought that was the way it is supposed to work too, as reading the
regs seems to overtly state this. But in actual practice the A&P is
now being basically required to seek permission from above whether he
can declare something to be minor or not... that he is expected to
assume everything is major unless the FSDO grants him permission to
declare it minor after they review the details themselves.


> If they bounced back 337's that were minor alterations, it would help
> everyone out.

I thought they were supposed to do exactly just that too -- to
"decline" the 337 with a note stating that the job is minor and to log
it as such. But that's not what's been happening in real life.

>
> Good luck

Thanks, I'll probably need it, but my IA did say that the 337 for the
PSE intercom should slide right thru the bureaucracy like greased
butter since a TSO'd part is already an approved part and its
installation manual also constitutes "approved data" for the 337

[Dave[_16_]]

One's Too Many wrote:
> On Aug 3, 6:27 pm, " > wrote:
>> It's up to the A&P to decide if the modification is a major or minor
>> modification.
>
> I thought that was the way it is supposed to work too, as reading the
> regs seems to overtly state this. But in actual practice the A&P is
> now being basically required to seek permission from above whether he
> can declare something to be minor or not... that he is expected to
> assume everything is major unless the FSDO grants him permission to
> declare it minor after they review the details themselves.
>
>
It is the way it works. There is no requirement for an A&P to seek
approval/permission for any modification if in his/her estimation it is
minor in nature. As an A&P I'll sign off anything I believe is a minor
alteration without anybodies approval.
If it's a major alteration, then a FSDO approval is necessary and an IA
needs to validate the alteration was done in accordance with the data
approved.

>> If they bounced back 337's that were minor alterations, it would help
>> everyone out.
>
> I thought they were supposed to do exactly just that too -- to
> "decline" the 337 with a note stating that the job is minor and to log
> it as such. But that's not what's been happening in real life.
>> Good luck
>
> Thanks, I'll probably need it, but my IA did say that the 337 for the
> PSE intercom should slide right thru the bureaucracy like greased
> butter since a TSO'd part is already an approved part and its
> installation manual also constitutes "approved data" for the 337
>

Just because something is TSO'd doesn't mean that it can be installed
every aircraft. TSO's is nothing more than paperwork way to try to
generate quality in a product.
It's a label like the "UL" label on kitchen appliances.
I could probably get a window AC unit TSO'd but it doesn't mean that you
can install it in your airplane. It means that it passes what ever TSO
standard that it was manufactured to.


Take a look at part 43 appendix A, it's pretty interesting.


Cheers!

[RST Engineering]

You seem to be determined to engender an FAA paperwork blizzard. If so,
please go for it and don't bother with these newsgroups. If you have a
reasonable A&P who installs it and a reasonable IA who does your annuals,
the FSDO will never have a clue as to what is going on.

On the other hand, you seem to want to tweak the FSDOs nose and get them
into the "approval" process where it is not necessary. Your call, and your
airplane.

Most of us out in the unwashed backwater airports don't give a good god damn
about the FSDO, just about keeping our airplanes airworthy to the highest
standards. Again, your call, and don't give me the crap about the FSDO
pulling an inspection on you out of the blue.

Jim


--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"One's Too Many" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Aug 3, 6:27 pm, " > wrote:
>>
>> It's up to the A&P to decide if the modification is a major or minor
>> modification.
>
> I thought that was the way it is supposed to work too, as reading the
> regs seems to overtly state this. But in actual practice the A&P is
> now being basically required to seek permission from above whether he
> can declare something to be minor or not... that he is expected to
> assume everything is major unless the FSDO grants him permission to
> declare it minor after they review the details themselves.
>
>
>> If they bounced back 337's that were minor alterations, it would help
>> everyone out.
>
> I thought they were supposed to do exactly just that too -- to
> "decline" the 337 with a note stating that the job is minor and to log
> it as such. But that's not what's been happening in real life.
>
>>
>> Good luck
>
> Thanks, I'll probably need it, but my IA did say that the 337 for the
> PSE intercom should slide right thru the bureaucracy like greased
> butter since a TSO'd part is already an approved part and its
> installation manual also constitutes "approved data" for the 337
>

[CheckerBird]

On Aug 3, 11:00 pm, One's Too Many > wrote:

> Thanks, I'll probably need it, but my IA did say that the 337 for the
> PSE intercom should slide right thru the bureaucracy like greased
> butter since a TSO'd part is already an approved part and its
> installation manual also constitutes "approved data" for the 337

Just hope they don't go tell you the intercom must also be STC'ed for
your aircraft before they allow it or to go hire a DER to create
approved data or to take it to one of those big city multi-million
dollar avionics shops to get installed. Up here in northern Texas, an
intercom installation is also considered a major alteration. My AP
says they claim it modifies the basic design of the comm radio system.
Must be a Texas thing.

OTOH, the Air Gizmo dock for a Garmin x96 is deemed a minor alteration
in this region and the GPS and dock can be installed for VFR-only
under reference of AC-20-138a with only a logbook entry, even when
hooked up to the ship's power and an external antenna mounted. Go
figure.

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: One's Too Many ]
> Posted At: Friday, August 03, 2007 10:37 PM
> Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
> Conversation: PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom?
> Subject: Re: Intercoms & FSDOs
>
....
> them them from a Cessna/Beech/whatever parts dealer. But, in the case
> of the Flightcom intercom I originally wanted, since it is not PMA'd,
> TSO'd or STC'd therefore it is declared to be an "unapproved part" and
> hence illegal to install on a certificated airplane as an aftermarket
> upgrade. I guess the extra $200 the PSE intercom costs must be worth
> it since it should be considered the hassle-avoidance fee.

Since the local FSDO's attitude will directly impact the manufacturers
like Flightcom, why aren't those manufacturers involved in this issue?
It shouldn't be up to the AI or AP to straighten out FSDO because they
will suffer any retribution, but the manufacturers should be able to go
to OKC and get some higher level directives issued shouldn't they?

Sure, paying $200 extra is a small issue for the end user, but losing
the entire sale has much more impact on the manufacturer. Follow the
money...


Kindest regards,
Jim Carter

Politicians fear most an armed, educated electorate.

[CheckerBird]

They sell their panel mount intercoms to the experimental market and
anyone who wants to put one in a certified plane sorts out the FAA
issues on their own. Here's a thread from over on the Piperowner's
forum from someone who went thru a similar adventure.

http://forums.piperowner.org/read/2/58522/58522/quote=1


BTW, is anyone else going to answer the poor fellow's original
questions about the audio and music quality of a PS-Engineering
PM3000?

I'm kinda curious too because I just ordered one of these myself,
along with a new ELT and a bunch of other stuff from Spruce since my
Cherokee has just come up for annual and I'm tired of cables strung
all over the floor from a portable intercom and I want to tidy up the
interior with some upgrades. I selected the PM3000 over the Flightcom
403 because I'm already familiar with the FC 403 having installed a
couple of these myself in friends' RV's I helped build, and they're ok
I guess, but their sound quality doesn't exactly knock my socks off.
I've heard music thru a PS-Engineering full audio panel in a friend's
Glasair-III and it sounded great. I guess you get what you pay for.

[Scott Skylane]

CheckerBird wrote:
/snip/
>
> BTW, is anyone else going to answer the poor fellow's original
> questions about the audio and music quality of a PS-Engineering
> PM3000?
>
/snip/

As far as intercom operation goes, the biggest advantage the PS has over
the Flightcomm is the fact that the MIC circuits are individual to each
station, and that *only* the MIC that is in use will break squelch. The
other station's MICS remain off-line. In the Flightcomm, when one
person speaks, *all* the MICS go hot, and thus you hear a lot of
background noise in the audio.

The Flightcomm has been the budget standard intercom for many years, and
they do a competent, reliable job of it. The PS, however, is also very
well built, and a bit more refined.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[NW_Pilot]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Seems like some FSDO is always on a rampage...of COURSE an intercom is a
> minor alteration. Several FAA publications are quite explicit on what is
> major and what is minor, and a publication out of Ok City trumps the
> Houston FSDO. Your FSDO folks have their panties in a wad and are way off
> base.
>
> As a matter of fact, there is nothing in a part 91 aircraft that HAS to be
> TSOd, including transponders, altitude encoders, and ELTs. Read the
> requirements. They have to MEET the TSO spec, but they don't have to be
> themselves TSOd.
>
> Jim
>
> --
> "If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
> --Henry Ford
>
>
>
> seems the Houston FSDO has been on a rampage against
>> mechanics installing non-TSO'ed intercoms in spamcans and calling it a
>> minor alteration.
>>
>
>


Can you toss me som links on the non TSO items for part 91 thanks.

usenet mail at international ferry flights dot com will get to me

[CheckerBird]

Thanks Scott, I kinda gleaned that info about the separate squelch
circuits from the PS web site. The common squelch circuit in cheaper
intercoms really isn't that big of a deal WRT noise pickup in my
experience however. The karaoke mode push-knob switchable music muting
feature of the PM3000 is one of the main things that attracted me to
this intercom.

[Viperdoc]

I recall a review of panel mount intercoms some time in the past in Aviation
Consumer. I have a PS-6000, with Lightspeed 30-3G headsets. The XM satellite
radio sounds great with this combination, including even classical music,
with a high dynamic range.

[Thomas Borchert]

One's,

> Is it really worth $200 more than the comparable Flightcom 403?
>

It's worth much more than that, because the 403 simply isn't
comparable. Have you ever had trouble connecting different headsets
from different brands to the same intercom? You'll see that with the
403, but you won't with a PSE unit. Have you ever noticed how ALL
connected headset microphones open when one person speaks and the vox
circuit opens? All the noise from all those mics gets transmitted into
the intercom system as a consequence. That's what happens with a 403,
but not with a PSE. I could go on...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[One's Too Many]

On Aug 7, 3:38 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> One's,
>
> > Is it really worth $200 more than the comparable Flightcom 403?
>
> It's worth much more than that, because the 403 simply isn't
> comparable. Have you ever had trouble connecting different headsets
> from different brands to the same intercom? You'll see that with the
> 403, but you won't with a PSE unit. Have you ever noticed how ALL
> connected headset microphones open when one person speaks and the vox
> circuit opens? All the noise from all those mics gets transmitted into
> the intercom system as a consequence. That's what happens with a 403,
> but not with a PSE. I could go on...

We finished up the installation late last night, tested it in the
hangar and played music from the iPod through it and it does sound
very, very good with my Denali headsets. The PSE was a wise choice
indeed. My A&P/IA hopes to have all his paperwork completed sometime
tomorrow but I won't have time to actually flight test the new
intercom until the weekend.

[One's Too Many]

> indeed. My A&P/IA hopes to have all his paperwork completed sometime
> tomorrow but I won't have time to actually flight test the new
> intercom until the weekend.

The FSDO rejected the field approval for the installation of the
intercom and said it was a minor alteration and to log it as such.
This after they formerly said it would be a major alteration. Excuse
me while I go pull my hair out.

[El Maximo]

Any chance you've got that in writing that you can post?


"One's Too Many" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> indeed. My A&P/IA hopes to have all his paperwork completed sometime
>> tomorrow but I won't have time to actually flight test the new
>> intercom until the weekend.
>
> The FSDO rejected the field approval for the installation of the
> intercom and said it was a minor alteration and to log it as such.
> This after they formerly said it would be a major alteration. Excuse
> me while I go pull my hair out.
>