PS Engineering PM3000 Intercom?

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.

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.

"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

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)

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.

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.

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.