12v power port for older Cessna

Hey all. I'd like to add a 12v power port to hook up my cell charger/PDA/GPS
/ hairdryer and marguerita blender. Any advice on how to get this done, or
is it a shop item? The plane is a 1982 C152.

Thanks in advance,
Marty from Drizzling Palm Beach

Marty from Florida wrote:

Hey all. I'd like to add a 12v power port to hook up my cell charger/PDA/GPS
/ hairdryer and marguerita blender. Any advice on how to get this done, or
is it a shop item? The plane is a 1982 C152.

http://www.powerstream.com/dc1.htm

Had to put one like this in our C152 due to the 28v buss system...

You could undo the connection to the current power outlet, wire that to
the voltage converter and then wire its output to the power outlet.
Total up the amps you'll need, a 200 watt unit should be sufficient...

http://www.powerstream.com/dc1-ap-notes.htm

Don't you already have a cigar lighter in the panel?

If not, it's something you need an A&P to sign off (note I didn't say
do - you could do the work yourself). Find the right A&P - one who
understands what a minor alteration is.

Michael

Michael wrote:
: Don't you already have a cigar lighter in the panel?

: If not, it's something you need an A&P to sign off (note I didn't say
: do - you could do the work yourself). Find the right A&P - one who
: understands what a minor alteration is.

Not that I disagree with the fact that this *is* a "minor alteration," but
does the FAA consider that to be true? Isn't something that permanently ties into
the electrical system supposed to require a field approval?

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Not that I disagree with the fact that this *is* a "minor
alteration," but
does the FAA consider that to be true?

Which FAA? Every FSDO is a fiefdom unto itself.

Isn't something that permanently ties into
the electrical system supposed to require a field approval?

Would that include a T&B? How about a voltmeter? A radio? Post
lights?

In some FSDO's, you're right - it's considered major. In some FSDO's
it's not. The real issue is that unless you bring it to the attention
of the FSDO, how are they going to know? You simply need to get it
past your IA at annual time.

Some IA's will ignore it even without paperwork. Most will accept an
A&P's signature and not question his determination that it was minor.
And a few assholes will actually ground your plane and make you either
pay to have it removed or get the FAA involved. A 337 doesn't save you
from this - remember how Honeck had to remove his strobes, installed
under a 337, because the IA decided they weren't legal and got the FAA
involved?

That's why it's important to choose your shop carefully.

Michael

: Which FAA? Every FSDO is a fiefdom unto itself.
Sadly, yes... that's pretty much what I meant. It's dependent on your
particular FSDO.

: Would that include a T&B? How about a voltmeter? A radio? Post
: lights?
Yes, I should say so. The only reason not to would be replacing a part with
an equivalent part. If your T&B dies, you can legally replace it with an equivalent
part without a field approval. A more electrically-oriented example would be if you
wanted to add an ammeter to your voltmeter-equipped plane vs. adding a voltmeter to
your ammeter-equipped plane. In the former, you need to sever the charging wire and
put in either the meter or a shunt for the meter. In the latter you only need a
negligible-current wire to run to a voltmeter. I would argue that the latter is a
minor alteration, but the former is much more significant. I'm sure the regs don't
have any way to distinguish between issues that subtle.

: In some FSDO's, you're right - it's considered major. In some FSDO's
: it's not. The real issue is that unless you bring it to the attention
: of the FSDO, how are they going to know? You simply need to get it
: past your IA at annual time.

: Some IA's will ignore it even without paperwork. Most will accept an
: A&P's signature and not question his determination that it was minor.
: And a few assholes will actually ground your plane and make you either
: pay to have it removed or get the FAA involved. A 337 doesn't save you
: from this - remember how Honeck had to remove his strobes, installed
: under a 337, because the IA decided they weren't legal and got the FAA
: involved?

True. Just shows how broken the whole system is. My question is what in the
*HELL* is a "signoff" by a certified IA good for if the next IA and everyone
thereafter is responsible for it too? It only serves to hold last guy accountable for
everything. What's the purpose of a certification for an IA if the next IA can't
trust the previous' work?

I don't recall Jay getting phucked having to remove strobes. That sounds like
it was an ugly FAA-ism.

: That's why it's important to choose your shop carefully.

Again, I call bull**** on this. Unfortunately, it's true.

-Cory

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

wrote:
A more electrically-oriented example would be if you
wanted to add an ammeter to your voltmeter-equipped plane vs. adding
a voltmeter to
your ammeter-equipped plane. In the former, you need to sever the
charging wire and
put in either the meter or a shunt for the meter. In the latter you
only need a
negligible-current wire to run to a voltmeter. I would argue that
the latter is a
minor alteration, but the former is much more significant. I'm sure
the regs don't
have any way to distinguish between issues that subtle.

No, the regs don't. People do. There is such a thing as judgment. An
A&P is supposed to be able to make a judgment call with respect to what
constitutes a major vs. minor alteration, within certain guidelines.
The guidelines give a fair amount of latitude. In many FSDO's, the
poliy is to make that latitude go away by dramatically restricting what
is allowed as a minor alteration.

Just shows how broken the whole system is.

Well, yes. That's why I don't think it's useful to discuss what the
rules actually are and what constitutes compliance - because it changes
from FSDO to FSDO, and from inspector to inspector, and if an inspector
wants to hang you he will find a way. The only useful things to
discuss are (a) what is actually reasonably safe and (b) what you can
get away with in terms of inspections.

In general, the only reason you need an annual is in the event of an
accident, and then only for insurance purposes. You might argue that
you need it to be 'legal' but that's a false argument. No plane is
ever legal. Any plane can be grounded. Therefore, you're really no
more legal with an annual than without. Unless the plane looks like
crap or has obviously non-aviation stuff installed, a ramp check will
not catch an out-of-annual aircraft - not that ramp checks are common.

I don't recall Jay getting phucked having to remove strobes. That
sounds like
it was an ugly FAA-ism.

No. It was a bad shop. The IA had the option of letting the 337
stand, and nobody would have questioned it. For decades, nobody had.
I believe those strobes are still in a shoebox.

Michael

Michael wrote:
: No, the regs don't. People do. There is such a thing as judgment. An
: A&P is supposed to be able to make a judgment call with respect to what
: constitutes a major vs. minor alteration, within certain guidelines.
: The guidelines give a fair amount of latitude. In many FSDO's, the
: poliy is to make that latitude go away by dramatically restricting what
: is allowed as a minor alteration.

There is such a thing as judgement, laws by definition do not allow for such a
thing. They are written in such a way as to preclude substantial differences in
individuals' interpretation. The whole concept of accountability is why many FSDOs
are making that latitude go away. If all you have to do is push paper stamping that a
DER said a field approval is OK, then it's not your fault if it breaks.

: Just shows how broken the whole system is.

: Well, yes. That's why I don't think it's useful to discuss what the
: rules actually are and what constitutes compliance - because it changes
: from FSDO to FSDO, and from inspector to inspector, and if an inspector
: wants to hang you he will find a way. The only useful things to
: discuss are (a) what is actually reasonably safe and (b) what you can
: get away with in terms of inspections.

Again, the two fundamental axioms of certified aircraft (and flying in
general):
A. What's safe is not necessarily legal
B. What's legal is not necessarily safe.

: In general, the only reason you need an annual is in the event of an
: accident, and then only for insurance purposes. You might argue that
: you need it to be 'legal' but that's a false argument. No plane is
: ever legal. Any plane can be grounded. Therefore, you're really no
: more legal with an annual than without. Unless the plane looks like
: crap or has obviously non-aviation stuff installed, a ramp check will
: not catch an out-of-annual aircraft - not that ramp checks are common.

Right... no plane is ever legal.

: I don't recall Jay getting phucked having to remove strobes. That
: sounds like
: it was an ugly FAA-ism.

: No. It was a bad shop. The IA had the option of letting the 337
: stand, and nobody would have questioned it. For decades, nobody had.
: I believe those strobes are still in a shoebox.

I'll say a bad shop. If I remember correctly, there's no such thing as
"grounding" an aircraft. It's simply not returning it to service. Seems like one
could bail on that inspection and go elsewhere... even if you technically have to fly
it there not "returned to service."

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

The whole concept of accountability is why many FSDOs
are making that latitude go away. If all you have to do is push
paper stamping that a
DER said a field approval is OK, then it's not your fault if it
breaks.

But all you're doing is pushing the determination from the A&P to the
DER. If having the DER say it's OK is good enough, why not the A&P?
After all, both are certificated. What's more, you can argue that you
have less responsibility with an A&P, since he supposedly met an
objective set of standards to be certificated, while a DER didn't.

It would be awfully cynical of me to believe that this is being pushed
to the DER's because anyone can become an A&P, but becoming a DER is a
cushy retirement gig for a fed or someone connected.

Again, the two fundamental axioms of certified aircraft (and flying
in general):
A. What's safe is not necessarily legal
B. What's legal is not necessarily safe.

Add a third - sometimes you have to choose one or the other, because
you can't have both.

I'll say a bad shop. If I remember correctly, there's no such thing
as
"grounding" an aircraft. It's simply not returning it to service.
Seems like one
could bail on that inspection and go elsewhere... even if you
technically have to fly
it there not "returned to service."

There's a whole discussion of this happening now on AvWeb.

Technically you are right. You can require that the IA sign off the
annual (as unairworthy) and give you a list of discrepancies, get a
ferry permit, and fly to another airport to have the discrepancies
resolved. But in real life, that's not an option unless you are at an
airport with multiple competing shops and can simply taxi over.

First off, you need a mechanic to sign off the ferry permit. We just
had one of those issues locally. A flight school plane was pranged at
an airport a few miles from home. A local shop did the repairs - but
then decided additional repairs were necessary. They wouldn't sign the
ferry permit. Nobody else on the field was going to **** in their soup
for no good reason (since he wouldn't be getting the business either)
and a mechanic had to be brought in to sign it from the home field. If
I just told an owner the plane needs a certain repair, and the owner
wants to go for a cheaper (and in my opinion less safe) repair
elsewhere, what possible incentive could I have to sign his ferry
permit? I know he's not coming back to me, so it's all extra liability
for no reason.

Second, you've just ****ed off the only shop on the field. What are
you going to do the next time something breaks and needs fixed? Get a
ferry permit every time? That means having a mechanic travel to your
home field every time something breaks. And sometimes the plane won't
be ferryable. We had a case like that too. One of the flight school
owners on the field managed to **** off EVERY A&P on the field, and
can't get any work done there. So he had to have a twin flown to
another airport with a failed brake. Of course nobody was going to
sign off on a no-brake ferry flight in a hot twin, and certainly not
anyone on the field. He got one of the flight instructors to fly it
anyway.

Your only real options, if you are based at a field with only one shop,
a
(a) Move
(b) Deal with the shop, on their terms. They have you over a barrel
(c) Learn to do your own maintenance, and get someone to sign off for
you

Michael

: But all you're doing is pushing the determination from the A&P to the
: DER. If having the DER say it's OK is good enough, why not the A&P?
: After all, both are certificated. What's more, you can argue that you
: have less responsibility with an A&P, since he supposedly met an
: objective set of standards to be certificated, while a DER didn't.

: It would be awfully cynical of me to believe that this is being pushed
: to the DER's because anyone can become an A&P, but becoming a DER is a
: cushy retirement gig for a fed or someone connected.

I was thinking the other way around (top down vs bottom up)... i.e. a FSDO
that used to do a field approval without requiring a DER will now require one for the
same type of modification. It's CYA on their part.... not the A&P.

: Again, the two fundamental axioms of certified aircraft (and flying
: in general):
: A. What's safe is not necessarily legal
: B. What's legal is not necessarily safe.

: Add a third - sometimes you have to choose one or the other, because
: you can't have both.

I like that... I'm going to use it.

: There's a whole discussion of this happening now on AvWeb.

: Technically you are right. You can require that the IA sign off the
: annual (as unairworthy) and give you a list of discrepancies, get a
: ferry permit, and fly to another airport to have the discrepancies
: resolved. But in real life, that's not an option unless you are at an
: airport with multiple competing shops and can simply taxi over.

I was thinking more along the lines of unapprovedly ferrying the plane to
another shop. You're right, however... if you're at a place with a single shop, then
they very well may have you screwed.

: permit? I know he's not coming back to me, so it's all extra liability
: for no reason.

Fair/true enough.

: Your only real options, if you are based at a field with only one shop,
: a
: (a) Move
: (b) Deal with the shop, on their terms. They have you over a barrel
: (c) Learn to do your own maintenance, and get someone to sign off for
: you

Option (c) is what I currently do, and I'm fortunate to be in a rural enough
area that there are a number of A&P/IA's around that consider that the norm. There
are *no* "shops" at any of the airports I frequency, so that's the norm, rather than
the exception. I certainly couldn't afford a plane if I had to pay a white-shirt shop
to maintain it for me.

-Cory


************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************