Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 08:56:12 -0600, Newps wrote:


There are several articles lately about installing the Air Gizmos mount.
Mike Busch has been one of the most vocal. According to him and
others this mount is the very definition of a minor alteration.


Yet:

http://www.airgizmos.com/faq.asp

includes:

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.


BZZZZZZT. If a maker of a product does not get an STC they forfeit any
right whatsoever to say what an owner or mechanic must go thru to
install their product. The point of my post is that it is up to the
mechanic to decide if installing this device, or any device, is a minor
or major alteration. A mechanic who calls the local FSDO to ask them if
it is minor or major is simply not doing his job. The FAA wants the
mechanics to decide for themselves if an installation is minor or major,
in fact they are required to. The FAA publishes a manual to help
mechanics, or owners for that matter, decide what is minor or major.
I've read it, it's actually a pretty simple document. Suffice it to say
any mechanic who calls the FSDO to ask about the Air Gizmos dock is a
moron, plain and simple. If you can count to ten then you will know by
reading the FAA guidance that this thing is a minor alteration. Actual
quote from the Mike Busch article concerning the Air Gizmos Dock:

"Can you imagine an alteration more minor than installing a hunk of
thermoformed plastic in your avionics stack? In my opinion, if you went
to the FSDO and asked for a field approval to install the Air Gizmos
panel dock in your Cessna, the inspector would probably fall off his
chair laughing. (And then he'd deny your request.)"

That's from page 8504.

The reason he'd deny your request is because the FAA wants to shift the
responsibility for making these decisions back to where they belong,
with the installing mechanic. This is, by the way, how it used to be
about 15 years ago. What the FAA really did when we had this big 337
brouhaha a couple years ago was to take things back to where they used
to be and in my opinion where they should be.



Why would the manufacturer provide misinformation that raises the cost of
its product?

Product liability is my guess.



Where have these articles appeared? I'd like very much to read them.

Do a Google search for Mike Busch. I've seen basically the same article
in several places this month. The best one is in the July issue of the
Cessna Pilots Assoc monthly magazine. A similar article was in this
months American Bonanza Society mag. I wouldn't be suprised if there
was one on Avweb.