Mounting 396

[Paul kgyy]

I have received the Garmin GPSMAP 396 that I ordered at OSH and am now
trying to figure out how to mount it securely in the airplane (Piper
Arrow)
1 I want to be able to use it out of the airplane occasionally.
2 Experimenting with it at home, it appears to me that the font size
on both screen and controls requires that it be within 2 feet of my
eyes. This seems to eliminate the Airgizmos mount in the radio stack
2 position, also the passenger yoke position.
3 This seems to leave either top of the glareshield, pilot yoke, or
suction cup on left windshield.
a. Glareshield location too high - impairs visibility
b. Yoke
(1) concerned about loose wires impairing yoke movement
(2) have to find another place for my approach plates
and time (currently both on yoke mount)
c. Suction Cup mount
This seems the best option in many ways, except that the
suction cups fall off occasionally, which is a safety hazard.

Other opinions/ideas?

[john smith]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> c. Suction Cup mount
> This seems the best option in many ways, except that the
> suction cups fall off occasionally, which is a safety hazard.

Do you have the long- or short-arm between the 396 and the suction cup?
If you have the long one, it may have too great a moment for the suction
cup to hold. I have the short one, and have only had it come off after
sitting in the sun on the ground for a couple of hours.

[Paul kgyy]

> Do you have the long- or short-arm between the 396 and the suction cup?
> If you have the long one, it may have too great a moment for the suction
> cup to hold. I have the short one, and have only had it come off after
> sitting in the sun on the ground for a couple of hours.

I haven't actually bought the suction cup yet, though I do have an
older one that I may try to adapt. I agree, the shorter, the better.
I think the one I have is maybe 6-8".

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Paul kgyy" wrote:

>I have received the Garmin GPSMAP 396 that I ordered at OSH and am now
> trying to figure out how to mount it securely in the airplane (Piper
> Arrow)


The yoke mount worked best for me in my 172RG.

Advantages:

o Easy to include in your instrument scan.

o Close at hand for button pushing.

o Positioned just right for bifocals/reading glasses.

o Right where it needs to be for using the faux panel if you lose your
gyros.

Disadvantages:

o You have to find somewhere else to hold approach plates.

o Wires have to be routed down the yoke shaft.

Bottom line, I found the yoke mount the handy had no problems with it.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

> Bottom line, I found the yoke mount handy and had no problems with it.


Fire the copy editor.

[Andrew Gideon[_2_]]

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:25:06 -0500, Dan Luke wrote:

> o You have to find somewhere else to hold approach plates.

Where?

- Andrew

[Paul kgyy]

On Aug 14, 5:38 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> > Bottom line, I found the yoke mount handy and had no problems with it.
>


How did you do the wiring to provide free movement of the yoke?

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Paul kgyy" wrote:

> How did you do the wiring to provide free movement of the yoke?


Under the yoke shaft I attached an adhesive tie-wrap clip to the panel.
Before I tie-wrapped the cables to the clip, I pulled the yoke out to its full
aft travel. The cables then trailed below the yoke shaft along with the PTT
cable. This setup was unobtrusive and caused no interference problems with
the yoke.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Andrew Gideon" wrote:

>> o You have to find somewhere else to hold approach plates.
>
> Where?
>

I kept them on a clipboard in my lap. The clipboard also held a letter sized
sheet with my flightplan and space to copy clearances.

I still use this setup, even though I no longer need a yoke mounted GPS and
have a chart clip available on the yoke.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article . com>,
Paul kgyy > wrote:

> I have received the Garmin GPSMAP 396 that I ordered at OSH and am now
> trying to figure out how to mount it securely in the airplane (Piper
> Other opinions/ideas?

When I used AnywhereMap, I had the PDA on a suction cup mount,
positioned on the left-hand front window. It was positioned so that the
PDA appeared just below the glare shield. It worked well, but mainly
because I could remove the PDA from the mount for data entry.
Unfortunately, the 396 can't be removed from the mount as quickly or
easily, which would require operating the unit with my left hand, or
reaching across with my right hand. Not an ideal situation.

For the 396, I've elected to keep it on a yoke mount. I believe that
there are some advantages to the yoke mount, with one being easy of use
and easy visibility.

If you elect to try the suction cup mount, I highly recommend the
G-Force mount available here: http://www.propellerheadpilot.com/

I left it on almost continuously, and it NEVER came loose on its own.



JKG

[Mike Spera]

Paul kgyy wrote:
> I have received the Garmin GPSMAP 396 that I ordered at OSH and am now
> trying to figure out how to mount it securely in the airplane (Piper
> Arrow)
> .stuff snipped
>
> Other opinions/ideas?
>

I have a Cherokee also and use the yoke mount. I tie-wrapped all 3 wires
neatly every 4 inches or so and formed a loop. The loop is big enough to
allow full aft and rotated travel. The 2 antenna wires split with the
power wire at the panel. The antenna wires go up to the top or the
glareshield and the power wire goes down and under the panel. I hook the
power wire around the side panel lip and route it behind the side panel
to hold the whole thing up.

However, this arrangement precludes you from removing the antennas and
power wire. It does keep the mounting neat and out of the way. Since I
don't use it anywhere besides this plane, this arrangement works for me.

I was going to buy the car kit, however, I find it way better to keep a
$250 unit in the car rather than risk a $2400 unit being stolen. The car
units are better suited for cars anyway (size, weight, screen size, etc.).

Good Luck,
Mike

[Ray Andraka]

OK, I have a 496, and an air gizmo mount, which I'd like to put on my
panel. I'm curious to the signoffs needed:

The Air gizmo I think should be allowed to be installed by the
owner/pilot as an interior decoration as long as it doesn't involve
drilling or cutting the panel. Correct? If I have to cut the panel or
drill holes, do I need an A&P signature? The W&B change is negligible I
believe.

In order to wire the power into the aircraft power (not through a cigar
lighter plug), I think I need an A&P signature, and all work has to
conform to 43.13, nothing more correct?

How about running extension wires for the XM USB and remote antenna to
the top of the glareshield with the wires behind the panel? I imagine
that needs an A&P sign-off if the wires are tie-wrapped into place?

OK, and the final question: It looks like in order to fit it in, I'll
need to pull the ancient Foster Loran and it's tray out. That's surely
going to need somebody's sign-off. Does that have to be pulled by an
avionics shop (it does have a connection to the autopilot switch), or
can that be done under an A&P's supervision and signature as well? I
figure I'll replace the Loran antenna with a comm antenna and leave the
end available on the panel for my handheld.

[Marco Leon]

To make a long story short, see your local avionics shop for guidance. Each
FSDO is forming their own opinion on the Air Gizmos panel mounting
requirements and these opinions should be well-known to the avionics shops
of their respective jurisdictions.

Marco


"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I have a 496, and an air gizmo mount, which I'd like to put on my
> panel. I'm curious to the signoffs needed:
>
> The Air gizmo I think should be allowed to be installed by the owner/pilot
> as an interior decoration as long as it doesn't involve drilling or
> cutting the panel. Correct? If I have to cut the panel or drill holes,
> do I need an A&P signature? The W&B change is negligible I believe.
>
> In order to wire the power into the aircraft power (not through a cigar
> lighter plug), I think I need an A&P signature, and all work has to
> conform to 43.13, nothing more correct?
>
> How about running extension wires for the XM USB and remote antenna to the
> top of the glareshield with the wires behind the panel? I imagine that
> needs an A&P sign-off if the wires are tie-wrapped into place?
>
> OK, and the final question: It looks like in order to fit it in, I'll need
> to pull the ancient Foster Loran and it's tray out. That's surely going
> to need somebody's sign-off. Does that have to be pulled by an avionics
> shop (it does have a connection to the autopilot switch), or can that be
> done under an A&P's supervision and signature as well? I figure I'll
> replace the Loran antenna with a comm antenna and leave the end available
> on the panel for my handheld.

[Jay Honeck]

> To make a long story short, see your local avionics shop for guidance. Each
> FSDO is forming their own opinion on the Air Gizmos panel mounting
> requirements and these opinions should be well-known to the avionics shops
> of their respective jurisdictions.

This is quite true. We've got our 496 panel docked, and one avionics
shop (in Illinois) said we needed a 337 and a whole gob of paperwork
to install it.

Our other shop (located in Iowa) said all we needed was a signoff,
which they happily (and cheaply) did.

Different FSDOs apparently have different opinions, which means
different shops will charge HUGELY different amounts for the AirGizmo
installation. Shop around.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Ray Andraka wrote:
> OK, I have a 496, and an air gizmo mount, which I'd like to put on my
> panel. I'm curious to the signoffs needed:
>
> The Air gizmo I think should be allowed to be installed by the
> owner/pilot as an interior decoration as long as it doesn't involve
> drilling or cutting the panel. Correct? If I have to cut the panel
> or drill holes, do I need an A&P signature? The W&B change is
> negligible I believe.
>
> In order to wire the power into the aircraft power (not through a
> cigar lighter plug), I think I need an A&P signature, and all work
> has to conform to 43.13, nothing more correct?
>
> How about running extension wires for the XM USB and remote antenna to
> the top of the glareshield with the wires behind the panel? I imagine
> that needs an A&P sign-off if the wires are tie-wrapped into place?
>
> OK, and the final question: It looks like in order to fit it in, I'll
> need to pull the ancient Foster Loran and it's tray out. That's
> surely going to need somebody's sign-off. Does that have to be
> pulled by an avionics shop (it does have a connection to the
> autopilot switch), or can that be done under an A&P's supervision and
> signature as well? I figure I'll replace the Loran antenna with a
> comm antenna and leave the end available on the panel for my handheld.

There was some FAA decisions a while back concerning the Air Gizmos in
certified aircraft. I did a quick Google search and couldn't find it but I'm
sure someone here will remember the details.

Here's what Air Gizmo's FAQ has to say about it.

Q: Can the Panel Dock be installed in a certified aircraft?
A: The Panel Dock can be installed in a certified aircraft, but you
will need an FAA field approval.

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>>To make a long story short, see your local avionics shop for guidance. Each
>>FSDO is forming their own opinion on the Air Gizmos panel mounting
>>requirements and these opinions should be well-known to the avionics shops
>>of their respective jurisdictions.
>
>
> This is quite true. We've got our 496 panel docked, and one avionics
> shop (in Illinois) said we needed a 337 and a whole gob of paperwork
> to install it.
>
> Our other shop (located in Iowa) said all we needed was a signoff,
> which they happily (and cheaply) did.
>
> Different FSDOs apparently have different opinions, which means
> different shops will charge HUGELY different amounts for the AirGizmo
> installation. Shop around.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result. It
seems to me the airgizmo itself is a minor modification that shouldn't
be on a 337 at all, and perhaps that is why the FSDO is turning them
down. My local A&P/IA is of the opinion that it falls under the
category of decorative fixtures in the cabin, and can therefore be
signed off by the pilot/owner. I personally think that is stretching
it. Basically I want to get it installed legally enough that I won't
get a hassle about it down the line. If that takes getting a 337 then
so be it, I'll have to go somewhere else to get it installed then.

[Newps]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

> Here's what Air Gizmo's FAQ has to say about it.
>
> Q: Can the Panel Dock be installed in a certified aircraft?
> A: The Panel Dock can be installed in a certified aircraft, but you
> will need an FAA field approval.


It is irrelevant what Air Gizmo has to say about it. If they don't
provide the STC then what they say about installation could not possibly
matter less.

[Ray Andraka]

OK, forgetting about the panel dock for the moment, wiring a connector
and fuse for ship's power is an A&P sign-off isn't it? Same for
securing extension wires behind the panel with both ends left out for
access but not connected to anything on the aircraft electrical system.
If I went with a RAM mount, if it is a suction cup or clamp mount then
nothing is needed for the mount itself. If it is screwed to the
airframe, then its an A&P sign-off, right? Nothing here that goes to a
FSDO or needs a 337, I'm pretty sure. Someone jump in and correct me if
wrong.

So it seems the real issue is whether the panel dock itself requires a
337, since it seems none of the rest does if the GPS is put on a RAM
mount. Frankly, I don't see where a case could be made that the panel
dock needs a 337 when a ram mount doesn't, but then this is the FAA we
are talking about.

So the other thing was pulling out the Foster Loran. Does removal of
avionic equipment require an avionics shop, or can that be done by an A&P?

[Newps]

Ray Andraka wrote:

> OK, I have a 496, and an air gizmo mount, which I'd like to put on my
> panel. I'm curious to the signoffs needed:
>
> The Air gizmo I think should be allowed to be installed by the
> owner/pilot as an interior decoration as long as it doesn't involve
> drilling or cutting the panel. Correct? If I have to cut the panel or
> drill holes, do I need an A&P signature? The W&B change is negligible I
> believe.


It is a minor alteration and needs to be signed off by an A&P as such.
An owner cannot do that. Drilling or cutting does not affect that.



>
> In order to wire the power into the aircraft power (not through a cigar
> lighter plug), I think I need an A&P signature, and all work has to
> conform to 43.13, nothing more correct?

Yes. One other way to go is to have the A&P wire up a cig lighter plug
under the panel where you can't see it. That way when the next
latest/greatest comes out you're ready to go. I have two extra cig
lighters under the panel. I have one wired directly to the battery so
it is always hot, that way I can recharge a cell phone or whatever. The
other is wired to come on with the master, that way the GPS fires up
automatically.



>
> How about running extension wires for the XM USB and remote antenna to
> the top of the glareshield with the wires behind the panel? I imagine
> that needs an A&P sign-off if the wires are tie-wrapped into place?

No, it wouldn't.



>
> OK, and the final question: It looks like in order to fit it in, I'll
> need to pull the ancient Foster Loran and it's tray out. That's surely
> going to need somebody's sign-off. Does that have to be pulled by an
> avionics shop (it does have a connection to the autopilot switch), or
> can that be done under an A&P's supervision and signature as well? I
> figure I'll replace the Loran antenna with a comm antenna and leave the
> end available on the panel for my handheld.

An A&P can do that. You can do all the work, just have him look it over
and sign it off. He'll have to change the placard on the autopilot
switch to reflect that the loran was removed.

[Newps]

Ray Andraka wrote:


> Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
> and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.


Why would they even ask FSDO in the first place? Don't they know how to
read?



It
> seems to me the airgizmo itself is a minor modification that shouldn't
> be on a 337 at all, and perhaps that is why the FSDO is turning them
> down.


Bingo.

[Ray Andraka]

Newps, Thanks.

Newps wrote:

>
>
> Ray Andraka wrote:
>
>> OK, I have a 496, and an air gizmo mount, which I'd like to put on my
>> panel. I'm curious to the signoffs needed:
>>
>> The Air gizmo I think should be allowed to be installed by the
>> owner/pilot as an interior decoration as long as it doesn't involve
>> drilling or cutting the panel. Correct? If I have to cut the panel
>> or drill holes, do I need an A&P signature? The W&B change is
>> negligible I believe.
>
>
>
> It is a minor alteration and needs to be signed off by an A&P as such.
> An owner cannot do that. Drilling or cutting does not affect that.
>
>
>
>>
>> In order to wire the power into the aircraft power (not through a
>> cigar lighter plug), I think I need an A&P signature, and all work has
>> to conform to 43.13, nothing more correct?
>
>
> Yes. One other way to go is to have the A&P wire up a cig lighter plug
> under the panel where you can't see it. That way when the next
> latest/greatest comes out you're ready to go. I have two extra cig
> lighters under the panel. I have one wired directly to the battery so
> it is always hot, that way I can recharge a cell phone or whatever. The
> other is wired to come on with the master, that way the GPS fires up
> automatically.
>
>
>
>>
>> How about running extension wires for the XM USB and remote antenna to
>> the top of the glareshield with the wires behind the panel? I imagine
>> that needs an A&P sign-off if the wires are tie-wrapped into place?
>
>
> No, it wouldn't.
>
>
>
>>
>> OK, and the final question: It looks like in order to fit it in, I'll
>> need to pull the ancient Foster Loran and it's tray out. That's
>> surely going to need somebody's sign-off. Does that have to be pulled
>> by an avionics shop (it does have a connection to the autopilot
>> switch), or can that be done under an A&P's supervision and signature
>> as well? I figure I'll replace the Loran antenna with a comm antenna
>> and leave the end available on the panel for my handheld.
>
>
> An A&P can do that. You can do all the work, just have him look it over
> and sign it off. He'll have to change the placard on the autopilot
> switch to reflect that the loran was removed.
>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

Is your aircraft certified or experimental?



Here's an article from AOPA on the subject:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070201parts.html
Don't take panel-mount option out of portable GPS, AOPA tells FAA
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
expense 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.

"This [rule] would basically require any person who manufactures a
part, like a light bulb, smoke detector, entertainment system, or
other non-critical part that has not been identified as a 'standard or
commercial part' to obtain a production approval from the FAA if the
part is to be installed in a type-certificated product," Gutierrez
said in formal comments opposing the proposed rule.

Also under the rule, parts listed on the design approval for one
aircraft couldn't be used as a replacement in another aircraft.

For example, let's say Cessna installs GE light bulbs in the
aircraft's instrument panel and lists the bulb in its design approval.
Well, you wouldn't be able to use that same type of light bulb to
replace the burned out one in your old Bonanza.

These proposals "would substantially increase the cost of general
aviation parts and unnecessarily stifle the development and
availability of safety and operational enhancement modifications,"
Gutierrez told the FAA. "AOPA requests that the FAA revise this
proposal to ensure that replacement and modification parts remain
affordable and available to GA aircraft owners."

February 1, 2007


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

AOPA's response to FAA NPRM: Docket No. FAA-2006-25877; Notice of
Proposed Ruelmaking; Production and Airworthiness Approvals, Part
Marking, and Miscellaneous Proposals:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2007/070201parts-letter.pdf

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

Enter docket number 25877 here:
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm

And you can read the NPRM and comments.

--------------------------------
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/media/Part-21_NPRM_Briefing.ppt
http://search.google.dot.gov/FAA/FAASearchProcess.asp?q=cache:ZRiIgd6f_MwJ:www.faa. gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/air/media/Part-21_NPRM_Briefing.ppt+nprm+25877&access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&site=FAA_Pages&ie=UTF-8&client=default_frontend&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&oe=UTF-8

Summary of Proposals

14 CFR Part 45 Continued
New Part Marking Requirements
Manufacturer & Part Number Req?d
Delete ?FAA-PMA? Markings
Delete ?installation eligibility? ? PMA

Project Status

Currently On Track ?
NPRM and Implementation Advisory Circulars Available for Comment at
http://dms.dot.gov, docket numbers 25877 and 25882

Final Rule to be published by April, 2008

Effective Date of Final Rule is set for October, 2009
---------------------------------

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Newps > writes:

> > Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at
> > all, and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a
> > result.

> Why would they even ask FSDO in the first place? Don't they know
> how to read?

Maybe because they are concerned about their livelihoods, should the
FSDO go after them for reading the regs differently than they do. The
usenet assurances of a pseudonymous "expert" won't serve as useful data.

- FChE

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Newps wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>> Here's what Air Gizmo's FAQ has to say about it.
>>
>> Q: Can the Panel Dock be installed in a certified aircraft?
>> A: The Panel Dock can be installed in a certified aircraft,
>> but you will need an FAA field approval.
>
>
> It is irrelevant what Air Gizmo has to say about it. If they don't
> provide the STC then what they say about installation could not
> possibly matter less.

I'd hardly say that it is irrelevant. They might just received some feedback
from what is happening in the real world.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:00:17 -0400, Ray Andraka >
wrote in >:

>Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
>and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.

Apparently Air Gizmo's products are not intended for installation in
certified aircraft:

http://www.airgizmos.com/paneldock.asp
All products on this site are intended for use on experimental
aircraft. Installation in a production aircraft may require an
FAA field approval. Copyright © 2005-2007, AirGizmos, LLC. All
Rights Reserved.

[Jay Honeck]

On Aug 21, 5:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
> >and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.
>
> Apparently Air Gizmo's products are not intended for installation in
> certified aircraft:
>
> http://www.airgizmos.com/paneldock.asp
> All products on this site are intended for use on experimental
> aircraft. Installation in a production aircraft may require an
> FAA field approval. Copyright © 2005-2007, AirGizmos, LLC. All
> Rights Reserved.

Insurance company boilerplate. Lawyers dictating life, yet again.

Installing the AirGizmo is simplicity itself. It enhances flight
safety by removing the clutter from the cockpit, and makes the 496 a
much more usable tool. For the FAA to be doing anything but embracing
this innovative device shows precisely how stupid a government agency
can be.

But that's no surprise.

Ray, c'mon back to the Midwest, where common sense prevails. Any of a
dozen shops will install it for ya, properly, with an A&P sign-off and
logbook entry.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Ray Andraka]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> Insurance company boilerplate. Lawyers dictating life, yet again.
>
> Installing the AirGizmo is simplicity itself. It enhances flight
> safety by removing the clutter from the cockpit, and makes the 496 a
> much more usable tool. For the FAA to be doing anything but embracing
> this innovative device shows precisely how stupid a government agency
> can be.
>
> But that's no surprise.
>
> Ray, c'mon back to the Midwest, where common sense prevails. Any of a
> dozen shops will install it for ya, properly, with an A&P sign-off and
> logbook entry.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>


Jay, I will if that's what it takes. My first preference would be to
install it myself under supervision of my A&P. I just have to make sure
he's willing to sign it off rather than having me either not log it or
sign it off as owner/pilot, neither of which is acceptable to me.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:44:14 -0700, Jay Honeck >
wrote in om>:

>On Aug 21, 5:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> >Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
>> >and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.
>>
>> Apparently Air Gizmo's products are not intended for installation in
>> certified aircraft:
>>
>> http://www.airgizmos.com/paneldock.asp
>> All products on this site are intended for use on experimental
>> aircraft. Installation in a production aircraft may require an
>> FAA field approval. Copyright © 2005-2007, AirGizmos, LLC. All
>> Rights Reserved.
>
>Insurance company boilerplate. Lawyers dictating life, yet again.
>

[...]

>For the FAA to be doing anything but embracing this innovative device
>shows precisely how stupid a government agency can be.

Perhaps. But how do you know that the Air Gizmo is safe for
installation in your aircraft? Have you personally (or anyone else)
thoroughly tested it, and can you state with certainly, for example,
that it will not emit voluminous poisonous smoke in the event of an
electrical fire, or any of many other possible objectionable hazards
or deficiencies?

That's why the FAA has STCs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate
Supplemental Type Certificate A Supplemental Type Certificate
(STC) is a document issued by the Federal Aviation Administration
approving a product (aircraft, engine, or propeller) modification.
The STC defines the product design change, states how the
modification affects the existing type design, and lists serial
number effectivity. It also identifies the certification basis
listing specific regulatory compliance for the design change.
Information contained in the certification basis is helpful for
those applicants proposing subsequent product modifications and
evaluating certification basis compatibility with other STC
modifications.


Would you be comfortable knowing, that the interior materials used in
your aircraft will emit cyanide gas in the event of a fire? Or would
you naively rely on ALL upholstery manufacturers to use safe materials
that don't do that without submitting them to FAA for certification?
Perhaps the government isn't as stupid as you think. Perhaps there
have been issues in the past that warranted the implementation of STC
policy?

Given the manufacturer's admonition:

http://www.airgizmos.com/faq.asp
Q: Can the Panel Dock be installed in a certified aircraft?
A: The Panel Dock can be installed in a certified aircraft, but
you will need an FAA field approval.

It would seem that FAA field approval* is required. I'm not an A&P,
nor FAA inspector, so I'm not qualified to provide a definitive answer
to this issue, so I'll defer to the professionals.

(But I can see where those manufacturers who do go through the expense
of STC approval might feel that they are being discriminated against
if the FAA were to permit unapproved parts to be manufactured for
installation in certified aircraft.)


*

https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/field_approvals/field_approv_proc/
Field Approval Process
The field approval process is used for one serial numbered
aircraft in accordance with FAA Order 8300.10, Vol. 2, Chapter 1.

Steps of the field approval process are:

The applicant proposes to repair or alter one serial numbered
aircraft.

The applicant must determine that the change is a major alteration
or repair per 14 CFR 1.1** and 14 CFR part 43, Appendix A;
The change is annotated on a FAA Form 337, Major Repair and
Alteration;

The applicant submits FAA Form 337 annotating the change with the
data package to the Flight Standards District Office;

The Flight Standards District Office may meet to assess the scope,
complexity of change in light of 14 CFR 1.1 definitions and 14 CFR
part 43, Appendix A. The Flight Standards District Office
determines that either:

The data is adequate and no field approval is required.
The Aviation Safety Inspector can sign Block 3 of FAA Form 337 to
approve the repair or alteration, or

Additional data from the applicant is needed if the original data
package is found to be inadequate, or

The data needs Aircraft Certification Office review in light of
its complexity or adequacy, or

The alteration is of a type listed in FAA Orders 8300.10 which
exceed the basic scope of a Field Approval and must be processed
as an STC.

If the Aircraft Certification Office reviews the data, they may:

Determine that the data package is acceptable as is and can be
approved as a Field Approval;

Support the field approval with engineering review, advocate
additional data or testing, assist with the flight test and
Airplane Flight Manual supplements;

Recommend that the project should be an Aircraft Certification
Office managed Supplemental Type Certification project, and should
proceed with the Supplemental Type Certification process.

The Inspector approves the repair or alteration by signing block 3
of Form 337.

Owners, operators, and persons who repair or alter aircraft, FAA
Flight Standards Inspectors, FAA Aircraft Certification Office
Engineers, and DERs need to know when a field approval is made.



** http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/14cfr1_06.html
Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft,
aircraft engine, or propeller specifications--

(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural
strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight
characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be
done by elementary operations.


Major repair means a repair:

(1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight,
balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation,
flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting
airworthiness; or

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be
done by elementary operations.


>
>But that's no surprise.
>

Neither is your shortsighted cynicism. :-)

>Ray, c'mon back to the Midwest, where common sense prevails.

"where the men are all good looking, the women are all strong, and the
children are above average."

>Any of a dozen shops will install it for ya, properly, with an A&P sign-off and
>logbook entry.

And your insurance company will have an opportunity to deny your
claim, and you can be assured of an FAA investigation at your next
ramp check, not to mention your opportunity to stay in an
aviation-themed motel. :-)

[Ray Andraka]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 04:44:14 -0700, Jay Honeck >
> wrote in om>:
>
>
>>On Aug 21, 5:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>>>Here in the Northeast, the FSDO will not approve an Air Gizmo at all,
>>>>and the avionics shop I talked to won't install it as a result.
>>>
>>>Apparently Air Gizmo's products are not intended for installation in
>>>certified aircraft:
>>>
>>> http://www.airgizmos.com/paneldock.asp
>>> All products on this site are intended for use on experimental
>>> aircraft. Installation in a production aircraft may require an
>>> FAA field approval. Copyright © 2005-2007, AirGizmos, LLC. All
>>> Rights Reserved.
>>
>>Insurance company boilerplate. Lawyers dictating life, yet again.
>>
>
>
> [...]
>
>
>>For the FAA to be doing anything but embracing this innovative device
>>shows precisely how stupid a government agency can be.
>
>
> Perhaps. But how do you know that the Air Gizmo is safe for
> installation in your aircraft? Have you personally (or anyone else)
> thoroughly tested it, and can you state with certainly, for example,
> that it will not emit voluminous poisonous smoke in the event of an
> electrical fire, or any of many other possible objectionable hazards
> or deficiencies?
>
> That's why the FAA has STCs.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_certificate
> Supplemental Type Certificate A Supplemental Type Certificate
> (STC) is a document issued by the Federal Aviation Administration
> approving a product (aircraft, engine, or propeller) modification.
> The STC defines the product design change, states how the
> modification affects the existing type design, and lists serial
> number effectivity. It also identifies the certification basis
> listing specific regulatory compliance for the design change.
> Information contained in the certification basis is helpful for
> those applicants proposing subsequent product modifications and
> evaluating certification basis compatibility with other STC
> modifications.
>
>
> Would you be comfortable knowing, that the interior materials used in
> your aircraft will emit cyanide gas in the event of a fire? Or would
> you naively rely on ALL upholstery manufacturers to use safe materials
> that don't do that without submitting them to FAA for certification?
> Perhaps the government isn't as stupid as you think. Perhaps there
> have been issues in the past that warranted the implementation of STC
> policy?
>
> Given the manufacturer's admonition:
>
> http://www.airgizmos.com/faq.asp
> Q: Can the Panel Dock be installed in a certified aircraft?
> A: The Panel Dock can be installed in a certified aircraft, but
> you will need an FAA field approval.
>
> It would seem that FAA field approval* is required. I'm not an A&P,
> nor FAA inspector, so I'm not qualified to provide a definitive answer
> to this issue, so I'll defer to the professionals.
>
> (But I can see where those manufacturers who do go through the expense
> of STC approval might feel that they are being discriminated against
> if the FAA were to permit unapproved parts to be manufactured for
> installation in certified aircraft.)
>
>
> *
>
> https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert/design_approvals/field_approvals/field_approv_proc/
> Field Approval Process
> The field approval process is used for one serial numbered
> aircraft in accordance with FAA Order 8300.10, Vol. 2, Chapter 1.
>
> Steps of the field approval process are:
>
> The applicant proposes to repair or alter one serial numbered
> aircraft.
>
> The applicant must determine that the change is a major alteration
> or repair per 14 CFR 1.1** and 14 CFR part 43, Appendix A;
> The change is annotated on a FAA Form 337, Major Repair and
> Alteration;
>
> The applicant submits FAA Form 337 annotating the change with the
> data package to the Flight Standards District Office;
>
> The Flight Standards District Office may meet to assess the scope,
> complexity of change in light of 14 CFR 1.1 definitions and 14 CFR
> part 43, Appendix A. The Flight Standards District Office
> determines that either:
>
> The data is adequate and no field approval is required.
> The Aviation Safety Inspector can sign Block 3 of FAA Form 337 to
> approve the repair or alteration, or
>
> Additional data from the applicant is needed if the original data
> package is found to be inadequate, or
>
> The data needs Aircraft Certification Office review in light of
> its complexity or adequacy, or
>
> The alteration is of a type listed in FAA Orders 8300.10 which
> exceed the basic scope of a Field Approval and must be processed
> as an STC.
>
> If the Aircraft Certification Office reviews the data, they may:
>
> Determine that the data package is acceptable as is and can be
> approved as a Field Approval;
>
> Support the field approval with engineering review, advocate
> additional data or testing, assist with the flight test and
> Airplane Flight Manual supplements;
>
> Recommend that the project should be an Aircraft Certification
> Office managed Supplemental Type Certification project, and should
> proceed with the Supplemental Type Certification process.
>
> The Inspector approves the repair or alteration by signing block 3
> of Form 337.
>
> Owners, operators, and persons who repair or alter aircraft, FAA
> Flight Standards Inspectors, FAA Aircraft Certification Office
> Engineers, and DERs need to know when a field approval is made.
>
>
>
> ** http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_06/14cfr1_06.html
> Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft,
> aircraft engine, or propeller specifications--
>
> (1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural
> strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight
> characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or
>
> (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be
> done by elementary operations.
>
>
> Major repair means a repair:
>
> (1) That, if improperly done, might appreciably affect weight,
> balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation,
> flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting
> airworthiness; or
>
> (2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be
> done by elementary operations.
>
>
>
>>But that's no surprise.
>>
>
>
> Neither is your shortsighted cynicism. :-)
>
>
>>Ray, c'mon back to the Midwest, where common sense prevails.
>
>
> "where the men are all good at looking, the women smell strong, and the
> children are above average brats."
>
>
>>Any of a dozen shops will install it for ya, properly, with an A&P sign-off and
>>logbook entry.
>
>
> And your insurance company will have an opportunity to deny your
> claim, and you can be assured of an FAA investigation at your next
> ramp check, not to mention your opportunity to stay in an
> aviation-themed motel. :-)


What about the ABS "Royalite" used on the production panel , or the
polyurethane seat cushion foam used in the production airplane? Those
both burn and emit toxic gasses, probably more so than the thermoplastic
used for the Air gizmo. I'd bet the air gizmo plastic is very similar
to the plastic used on the faceplates of a lot of the TSO'd radios.
Same is true for the plastic cradle that comes with the 496 for use with
the yoke mount.

I see nothing in my insurance contract that would allow them to deny a
claim because I have a panel dock in my airplane. As long as the
installation is properly logged I should be fine with the FAA and the
insurance company, especially after it gets past the first annual with
it installed.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:03:54 -0400, Ray Andraka >
wrote in >:

>
>What about the ABS "Royalite" used on the production panel , or the
>polyurethane seat cushion foam used in the production airplane? Those
>both burn and emit toxic gasses, probably more so than the thermoplastic
>used for the Air gizmo.

My example was in reference to cyanide gas generated by some
upholstery materials when burnt, not Air Gizmo's products
specifically. That was remedied by the FAA a while back, IIRC.

>
>I see nothing in my insurance contract that would allow them to deny a
>claim because I have a panel dock in my airplane. As long as the
>installation is properly logged I should be fine with the FAA and the
>insurance company, especially after it gets past the first annual with
>it installed.

Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required. On what are
you basing your "installation is properly logged" conclusion, the word
of a motel operator?

[john smith[_2_]]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> My example was in reference to cyanide gas generated by some
> upholstery materials when burnt, not Air Gizmo's products
> specifically. That was remedied by the FAA a while back, IIRC.

Yes, for anything after the rule was written.
It doesn't apply to anything produced before the rule went into effect.

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
> Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required.


That's not Air Gizmo's call. That is your mechanics.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:31:27 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>
>> Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required.
>
>
>That's not Air Gizmo's call. That is your mechanics.

I understand what you're saying; the A&P/IA puts his certificate on
the line. But given the fact that the OP wasn't able to locate one
who would install the Air Gizmo, do you see what I'm saying?

[Marco Leon]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Jay, I will if that's what it takes. My first preference would be to
> install it myself under supervision of my A&P. I just have to make sure
> he's willing to sign it off rather than having me either not log it or
> sign it off as owner/pilot, neither of which is acceptable to me.

No need to go that far Ray (despite the lure of staying at Jay's hotel). I
was able to get a quote from Penn Avionics (www.pennavionics.com). Their
FSDO isn't giving them a hard time and were willing to install it. I just
haven't been able to schedule it yet. My quote is a couple of months old so
hopefully things haven't changed.

Marco

[Jay Honeck]

> Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required. On what are
> you basing your "installation is properly logged" conclusion, the word
> of a motel operator?

No, on the word of a hotel operator who HAS HAD THE AIR GIZMO LEGALLY
INSTALLED AND SIGNED OFF IN THE PANEL OF HIS CERTIFICATED AIRCRAFT.
(Loud and clear enough for you?)

Have you had an AirGizmo installed, Larry? If not, your opinion here
means precisely squat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56933
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:31:27 -0600, Newps > wrote
> in >:
>
>
>>
>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required.
>>
>>
>>That's not Air Gizmo's call. That is your mechanics.
>
>
> I understand what you're saying; the A&P/IA puts his certificate on
> the line. But given the fact that the OP wasn't able to locate one
> who would install the Air Gizmo, do you see what I'm saying?
>

What's happening is a larger issue. Several years ago the FAA came out
and said basically no more field approvals. Everybody groaned. But few
read the fine print. What the FAA is doing is going back to the way the
rules were intended to be interpreted. This is a good thing. They are
intended to be interpreted by the mechanics. What happened over the
years is the mechanics just got used to calling mother FAA for damn near
everything. The FAA is not where the expertise is, it resides with the
mechanics in the field. The FAA realized this and shifted the
responsibility back where it belongs, with the mechanics. When Air
Gizmo writes that you need a 337 that's just CYA. They have zero say in
the matter. Just like some peoples desire to buy parts with a yellow
tag. A yellow tag means exactly nothing. Only the mechanic installing
the part is the one who can vouch for its airworthiness and he alone
bears that responsibility. So mechanincs have been bitching for years
how restrictive the FAA has been, which is entirely a situation of their
own making and now the FAA has in reality turned them loose. Basically
said read the damn rule book. Now grow some balls and get off our back.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 13:09:00 -0600, Newps > wrote
in >:

>
>
>Larry Dighera wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:31:27 -0600, Newps > wrote
>> in >:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Air Gizmo says a FAA Form 337 field approval is required.
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not Air Gizmo's call. That is your mechanics.
>>
>>
>> I understand what you're saying; the A&P/IA puts his certificate on
>> the line. But given the fact that the OP wasn't able to locate one
>> who would install the Air Gizmo, do you see what I'm saying?
>>
>
>What's happening is a larger issue. Several years ago the FAA came out
>and said basically no more field approvals. Everybody groaned. But few
>read the fine print. What the FAA is doing is going back to the way the
>rules were intended to be interpreted. This is a good thing. They are
>intended to be interpreted by the mechanics. What happened over the
>years is the mechanics just got used to calling mother FAA for damn near
>everything. The FAA is not where the expertise is, it resides with the
>mechanics in the field. The FAA realized this and shifted the
>responsibility back where it belongs, with the mechanics. When Air
>Gizmo writes that you need a 337 that's just CYA. They have zero say in
>the matter. Just like some peoples desire to buy parts with a yellow
>tag. A yellow tag means exactly nothing. Only the mechanic installing
>the part is the one who can vouch for its airworthiness and he alone
>bears that responsibility. So mechanincs have been bitching for years
>how restrictive the FAA has been, which is entirely a situation of their
>own making and now the FAA has in reality turned them loose. Basically
>said read the damn rule book. Now grow some balls and get off our back.

That's reasonable. Hence the inconsistency among Air Gizmo
installers. What about the STC issue?

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
>
> Have you had an AirGizmo installed, Larry? If not, your opinion here
> means precisely squat.

Oh, not just then, Jay.

Larry's word ALWAYS means precisely squat! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Larry's word ALWAYS means precisely squat! <g>

Nonsense. Larry made a salient point, once. I don't remember what it
was, but he was agreeing with something I had posted...

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

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>>
>>What's happening is a larger issue. Several years ago the FAA came out
>>and said basically no more field approvals. Everybody groaned. But few
>>read the fine print. What the FAA is doing is going back to the way the
>>rules were intended to be interpreted. This is a good thing. They are
>>intended to be interpreted by the mechanics. What happened over the
>>years is the mechanics just got used to calling mother FAA for damn near
>>everything. The FAA is not where the expertise is, it resides with the
>>mechanics in the field. The FAA realized this and shifted the
>>responsibility back where it belongs, with the mechanics. When Air
>>Gizmo writes that you need a 337 that's just CYA. They have zero say in
>>the matter. Just like some peoples desire to buy parts with a yellow
>>tag. A yellow tag means exactly nothing. Only the mechanic installing
>>the part is the one who can vouch for its airworthiness and he alone
>>bears that responsibility. So mechanincs have been bitching for years
>>how restrictive the FAA has been, which is entirely a situation of their
>>own making and now the FAA has in reality turned them loose. Basically
>>said read the damn rule book. Now grow some balls and get off our back.
>
>
> That's reasonable. Hence the inconsistency among Air Gizmo
> installers. What about the STC issue?

That's something Air Gizmo would need to consider. It seems silly to
get one since a cursory read of the requirements for a major
modification don't support the need for one.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 15, 9:46 am, Jonathan Goodish > wrote:
> In article . com>,
> Paul kgyy > wrote:
>
> > I have received the Garmin GPSMAP 396 that I ordered at OSH and am now
> > trying to figure out how to mount it securely in the airplane (Piper
> > Other opinions/ideas?
>
> When I used AnywhereMap, I had the PDA on a suction cup mount,
> positioned on the left-hand front window. It was positioned so that the
> PDA appeared just below the glare shield. It worked well, but mainly
> because I could remove the PDA from the mount for data entry.
> Unfortunately, the 396 can't be removed from the mount as quickly or
> easily, which would require operating the unit with my left hand, or
> reaching across with my right hand. Not an ideal situation.
>
> For the 396, I've elected to keep it on a yoke mount. I believe that
> there are some advantages to the yoke mount, with one being easy of use
> and easy visibility.
>
> If you elect to try the suction cup mount, I highly recommend the
> G-Force mount available here:http://www.propellerheadpilot.com/
>
> I left it on almost continuously, and it NEVER came loose on its own.
>
> JKG

I COMPLETELY AGREE .. . this is by far the best option!