A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 13th 07, 03:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Doug Vetter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 81
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga

Marco Leon wrote:
That leaves Pennsylvania as the closest. I have a quote from Penn
Avionics and I'm trying to get a day to go there. They've done a number
of these already and know exactly what I want and their prices are not
bad. Their FSDO is OK with it as a logbook entry but they can do the
field approval for some extra $$. They also brought up a good point in
that if I get a 337 to cover me "just in case," I'll need another 337
to take it out if I sell the plane and want to keep the 496.


Marco,

I know Peter well. He does all the avionics work on our airplane.
If he says it can be done, it will be done properly.

Tell him I sent you.

-Doug

--------------------
Doug Vetter, ATP/CFI

http://www.dvatp.com
--------------------
  #12  
Old January 13th 07, 04:09 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mike Spera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



If anyone in the northeast area has had better success, I'd be
interested in a PIREP.


Although I am not in the Northeast, here is another datapoint. The folks
here at JA Air Center (Northeast Illinois - DPA) say they have done
several installations. Our local FSDO is about 1 block away from their
facility. If I recall, they were talking logbook entry and nothing more.
You might give them a call to see what they are doing. These guys are
usually pretty "by the book" and work very closely with their FSDO.

I have given this a lot of thought myself. I am concerned about whether
I will be able ot SEE the thing way across the panel. The screen is hard
enough to see on the yoke mount. At 51, the Mk I eyeballs (2 each) are
beginning to need reading glasses. On the yoke, it is a bit of a
challenge to see the small details. Across the panel with the engine
running, in light-moderate bumps, and on instruments, I really don't
know how I would be able to use it. That is also REALLY outside of my
scan. In those conditions, the yoke mount appears to be a better bet.

Any of you PPSEL - IA folks use one in actual from the dock?

Good Luck,
Mike



  #13  
Old January 13th 07, 04:26 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Steve Foley[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 171
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga

"Marco Leon" wrote in message
oups.com...
Steve Foley wrote:
Call Conrad at the Radio Shop in Worcester , MA (ORH).

508-757-6954

Tell him I told you to call. It won't do you any good, but it may help me


I take it he won't do the install either.


I have no idea if he'll install it or not. I use him for a transponder check
every two years.

I doubt he'll give you a discount for knowing me. My next time, I may get
one for directing business his way.


  #14  
Old January 13th 07, 06:38 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Marco Leon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga

Mike Spera wrote:
[snip]
I have given this a lot of thought myself. I am concerned about whether
I will be able ot SEE the thing way across the panel. The screen is hard
enough to see on the yoke mount. At 51, the Mk I eyeballs (2 each) are
beginning to need reading glasses. On the yoke, it is a bit of a
challenge to see the small details. Across the panel with the engine
running, in light-moderate bumps, and on instruments, I really don't
know how I would be able to use it. That is also REALLY outside of my
scan. In those conditions, the yoke mount appears to be a better bet.


Viewing it concerns me too but a little differently. I've noticed that
for some reason, the terrain detail on the 496 gets lost when viewing
the screen from the left at the slightest offset angle and not at all
from the right. Virtually all the other detail (like airspace and field
values) can be seen from the left however. Luckily, the terrain
warnings can be seen OK so it's more of a cosmetic issue but annoying
nonetheless. Anyone else notice this?

I'll install the angled dock if it get too annoying but I'd rather not.

Marco

  #15  
Old January 13th 07, 06:47 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Marco Leon
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 319
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga

Ray Andraka wrote:
Seems the FSDO that serves Connecticut not only won't approve them, but will
ramp any plane he sees them in and tag it as an unapproved mod. His
issue is apparently with it being PVC it won't pass the burn test for
interior furnishings (I didn't know that applied to anything other than
the fabric, but that's beside the point). I'll bet the royalite panel
overlay that is factory original won't pass the burn test either and
will generate just as much toxic fumes if ignited as that air gizmo
will. One of the Connecticut shops said that they have made sheet metal
holders similar in appearance and function to the air-gizmo, and that
there is no problem getting those past the FSDO, but the plastic ones
won't fly. He suggested a RAM mount bolted to the panel (which I think
looks clunky) as an alternative that is considerably cheaper than making
a metal Air-gizmo.


Thanks Ray, that's good to know. I bet this dude will have a field day
during next year's AOPA Convention. Sounds like he's made it his own
little mission--a true FAA'er. And you're right, all that plastic
around my Warrior's panel would suffer the same fate in the event of a
fire.

I got ramp-checked during my first solo x-country so I should be good
for 20 years or so

Marco

  #16  
Old January 13th 07, 02:39 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mike Granby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga


Field approvals are 100% discretionary. They can deny them on the basis
that they don't feel like it, if that's what they want to do. And
there's nothing you can do about it.

  #17  
Old January 13th 07, 07:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



Mike Granby wrote:
Field approvals are 100% discretionary. They can deny them on the basis
that they don't feel like it, if that's what they want to do.



Hogwash.


And
there's nothing you can do about it.


FSDO is not in the loop anymore as all field approvals go right to OKC now.
  #18  
Old January 13th 07, 11:17 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Mike Granby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga


Newps wrote:

Hogwash


I disagree. If the FSDO don't want to issue the Field Approval, you
have no further recourse, except to try and get it through a different
FSDO.

FSDO is not in the loop anymore as
all field approvals go right to OKC now.


Nonsense. I got a field approval last year on a Boom Beam, and it was
most certainly sent to the FSDO. The submission goes to the FSDO, and
then perhaps to the ACO if it's particular complicated, but it's still
the FSDO that controls the process. Now, the completed 337s go straight
to OK City, but that's something else entirely.

See...

http://www.faa.gov/aircraft/air_cert...d_approv_proc/

  #19  
Old January 13th 07, 11:21 PM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Tri-Pacer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 120
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



FSDO is not in the loop anymore as all field approvals go right to OKC
now.


Really ???? What FSDO do you work under?

I still send my field approvals to my PMI and he stamps them and sends them
back to me.

When I return the plane to service I send the signed 337 to OKC per the
change to appendix B part 43.

Cheers:

Paul
N1431A
A&P IA


  #20  
Old January 14th 07, 04:34 AM posted to rec.aviation.owning
Newps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,886
Default Airgizmo and Garmin 496 Install Saga



Mike Granby wrote:
Newps wrote:


Hogwash



I disagree. If the FSDO don't want to issue the Field Approval, you
have no further recourse, except to try and get it through a different
FSDO.


You miss the point. It doesn't need a field approval in the first
place. Find a mechanic with some balls.




FSDO is not in the loop anymore as
all field approvals go right to OKC now.



Nonsense. I got a field approval last year on a Boom Beam,



Yes, last year. As of the last few weeks local FSDO's are out of the
loop. All 337's go to OKC now and are not reviewed for airworthiness.



and it was
most certainly sent to the FSDO. The submission goes to the FSDO, and
then perhaps to the ACO if it's particular complicated, but it's still
the FSDO that controls the process. Now, the completed 337s go straight
to OK City, but that's something else entirely.


FSDO is completely out of the picture. Your options are to get a
mechanic who knows the regs and realizes an Air Gizmo is not now and not
ever something that needs a field approval. For something that does
need approval you can either submit it to the FAA in OKC and they will
get around to it when they get around to it. This could take years.
Another option is to hire a DER to provide your mechanic with the
required data. Either way the local FSDO doesn't have thing one to say
about it.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Garmin 496-XM Radio-PS Engineering Intercom Follow up... Jay Honeck Owning 25 December 9th 06 01:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.