Gizmo Problems

[wabower]

I'm paying more attention to Aspen installations pending my upcoming makeover that will include a 696 in the panel along-side the glass panels.

Yesterday I saw a nicely-done A-36 panel with a 796 that appeared to be mounted in a metal frame. Since I normally expect to see the Garmins mounted in Gizmo plastic frames (and own one with that purpose in mind) I asked why the shop had used a metal mount instead.

The response was that the FSDO had made their annual inspection of the shop a few months earlier, and after years of silence (tacit approval) regarding the Gizmo installations has now decreed they would no longer be allowed since the Gizmo's plastic frame has not been burn tested to FAA specs.

Various FSDO's have taken different positions on these mounts over the years, but most of the debate has centered on whether use of the panel-mount adaptor crosses the line between hand-held and installed equipment. This new stance is a bit of a surprise, but doesn't mean an owner can't find another FSDO with a different interpretation.

 

[bnt83]

This new stance is a bit of a surprise, but doesn't mean an owner can't find another FSDO with a different interpretation.

Doesn't mean they couldn't burn one either... Just be sure and order 2 of them.

 

[wabower]

Doesn't mean they couldn't burn one either... Just be sure and order 2 of them, hire the lab, compile and publish the results, submit them to the FAA and wait for the approval. With any luck you could be flying with the required approvals within 5 years, maybe only 4 if you're real lucky.

FYFY

 

[JHW]

Hi Wayne,

here's a good example of a gizmo write-up and supporting documentation, one of the best I've seen. You could reference the same material specification document and get a niece or nephew in engineering school to generate a similar FEA report for the bigger version of gizmo mount.

 

[Ted]

Doesn't mean they couldn't burn one either... Just be sure and order 2 of them.

Wayne's more or less got it right.

 

[wabower]

Wow. That's impressive.

Based on the intended use, do you happen to know if it has been published in comic-book format like the Army training manuals?

Hi Wayne,

here's a good example of a gizmo write-up and supporting documentation, one of the best I've seen. You could reference the same material specification document and get a niece or nephew in engineering school to generate a similar FEA report for the bigger version of gizmo mount.

 

[bnt83]

FYFY

Takes 5 days to get a burn max.... Flame Out Inc. It's not some magic voodoo test that requires thousands of dollars and years of work...

Compile and publish the results? Care to expand on this? Its a piece of paper that shows the test artice passed a test. Its essentially an "8130-3" but for the burn test.

 

[bnt83]

Wayne's more or less got it right.

If the only hurdle a FSDO can come up with is that they have not been burn tested, that's a 5 day wait, if it passes the first test. They burn everything from plexi to leather so... I wouldn't be too worried about it not passing.

 

[wabower]

Who knows that they're thinking? The burn cert might issue might be the real deal, or it could be a smokescreen for the other issue that has been debated since the first snap-in mount was introduced many years ago. The shop obviously felt that the hare wasn't worth the chase and found a work-around. YMMV.

If the only hurdle a FSDO can come up with is that they have not been burn tested, that's a 5 day wait, if it passes the first test. They burn everything from plexi to leather so... I wouldn't be too worried about it not passing.

 

[Skylane81E]

Is it a car3 plane? Burn requirements for them are even more lax IIRC

 

[Silvaire]

Hi Wayne,

here's a good example of a gizmo write-up and supporting documentation, one of the best I've seen. You could reference the same material specification document and get a niece or nephew in engineering school to generate a similar FEA report for the bigger version of gizmo mount.

Personally I wouldn't submit a 337 for a Gizmo installation as it does not, in any way shape or form, fit the criteria of a major alteration. As for burn testing, how about all of those other control yoke clamp-on contrivances, have they ever been burn tested? How about the 696 itself? Does everything you bring onboard the aircraft require such certification? Is it not more likely that a device that clamps onto the actual flight control mechanism might be more apt to cause a potential problem than if it were mounted to the panel?

These are all valid questions but the bottom line is that there is no reason to ask anyone at any FSDO for the answers because it is plainly and simply NOT a major alteration. Read the regs and parse them however you want. There is nothing in there that puts screwing, or even wiring a gizmo into that category.

 

[bnt83]

There's always one person who wants to say "you can't do that".

1. Just because it doesn't carry an approval doesn't mean it can't get one.
2. Just because one said it needs approval, doesn't mean it really does.

The OEM built the airplane using acceptable practices to meet the regulations at the time of certification. We can use different acceptable practices to do the same thing.

 

[wabower]

If any avionics shop owner told me he was going to argue with his POI over the installation of a bleeping hand-held GPS in a panel, I'd fire his ass in a NYM for stupidity. My job alone was a $75,000 installation and he had numerous others in progress that were in the same category.

There's always one person who wants to say "you can't do that".

1. Just because it doesn't carry an approval doesn't mean it can't get one.
2. Just because one said it needs approval, doesn't mean it really does.

The OEM built the airplane using acceptable practices to meet the regulations at the time of certification. We can use different acceptable practices to do the same thing.