PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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!