STC needed for internal rear view mirror?

\__[Ô]__/

\__[Ô]__/

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
496
Location
Ames, IA
Display Name
Display name:
david
Do I need an STC to install a rear view mirror inside a plane? If not, what do I need to do to make the installation legal?
 
Greg Bockelman said:
What airplane and how do you intend to mount it?

Also, why do you need it?
Click to expand...

Super Cub and Citabria. I'm looking to attach it to the frame tubes by the windshield.

Purpose is for towing operations. A solution more permanent than using Velcro or a suction mount is preferred.
 
Ok, I am curious. Super Cub and Citabria. No back window. Just where are you looking and what are you looking for?

Otherwise, just mount it on the tubing however you like and forget it.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Ok, I am curious. Super Cub and Citabria. No back window. Just where are you looking and what are you looking for?

Otherwise, just mount it on the tubing however you like and forget it.
Click to expand...

If it has a skylight, it works pretty well to see out the back, especially during ground operations when you have ground crew positioning and hooking up the glider.
 
Hmm..

David, if that is in fact the case, mount it however you want and forget it. No one is going to say anything about it.
 
brcase said:
If it has a skylight, it works pretty well to see out the back, especially during ground operations when you have ground crew positioning and hooking up the glider.
Click to expand...

Yep - that's it.

I know I can physically mount it on the tubes and I know that probably nobody is going to care. But I want to make sure I've got everything covered on the off chance the FAA comes poking around. So I'm trying to figure out what, if anything, I'd need to do to make the FAA ok with that installation.
 
I cannot 100% guarantee that the feds won't say anything, but I am pretty sure they wouldn't give that a second glance. If it were me, I would mount it and forget it.
 
\__[Ô]__/;1569060 said:
Super Cub and Citabria. I'm looking to attach it to the frame tubes by the windshield.

Purpose is for towing operations. A solution more permanent than using Velcro or a suction mount is preferred.
Click to expand...

I did this in my Citabrias with a convex truck mirror, back before I worried about every little technicality.

I did it so I could make eye contact with my students in the front seat, or from the front seat monitor how my rear seat passengers were doing.

Should be easy to come up with something removable with SuperLok tape, suction cup or clamps.
 
I'm with Greg -- I don't see this as a major alteration requiring a 337 and FAA approval even if it is bolted to the frame tubes, just a log entry signed by an A&P. Since it's probably less than 1 lb, the W&B effect should be "negligible", making it that much easier.
 
I had one in my Citabria. no documentation anywhere. Three screws and it was in. Useful for towing if you have a greenhouse.
 
Sounds like the same as the recent FAA notice on camera mounts. Should not be a problem until it becomes a problem.
 
Ron Levy said:
I'm with Greg -- I don't see this as a major alteration requiring a 337 and FAA approval even if it is bolted to the frame tubes, just a log entry signed by an A&P. Since it's probably less than 1 lb, the W&B effect should be "negligible", making it that much easier.
Click to expand...
would you feel free to run bolts thru a structural spar?:yikes:

no bolts thru a structural frame member.....how bout P-clamps (adel clamps)?:nono:

 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
would you feel free to run bolts thru a structural spar?:yikes:

no bolts thru a structural frame member.....how bout P-clamps (adel clamps)?:nono:

Click to expand...

Well, geez. I give people credit for having more common sense than that. Is that misguided?

And why not adel clamps? We are talking the exposed tubing here.
 
Greg Bockelman said:
Well, geez. I give people credit for having more common sense than that. Is that misguided?

And why not adel clamps? We are talking the exposed tubing here.
Click to expand...
cause that would imply an install....which inplies a log book entry....which also implies interpretation of minor vs. major alteration....which may or may not imply bad things from your local FSDO.:dunno:


which leads me back to velcro....which is not interpreted as an install. :rolleyes2:
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
cause that would imply an install....which inplies a log book entry....which also implies interpretation of minor vs. major alteration....which may or may not imply bad things from your local FSDO.:dunno:
Click to expand...

And I stand by my statement in Post 11.
 
RotorAndWing said:
Yep. Worst case scenario is they ask you to remove it. ( highly doubtful they even care)
Click to expand...

Was having lunch with one of the systems DERs on staff and got a big laugh when he said I'd need an STC for carry-on clamp type yoke mount in a 1956 C172. :rofl:
 
Greg Bockelman said:
I cannot 100% guarantee that the feds won't say anything, but I am pretty sure they wouldn't give that a second glance. If it were me, I would mount it and forget it.
Click to expand...
and something as silly as a sun visor requiring an STC?

....who woulda thunk it? :mad2:
 
Obviously I'm not going to drill holes in the structural supports. I was thinking some form of clamp.

I imagine Velcro might work, but I'm worried that the attachment will have more vibration with Velcro. A vibrating mirror will give a blurry image - which is better than nothing, but not ideal.
 
In my 1971 Skyhawk C-172L. There was one similarly mounted in the C-150 trainer that started me. I got used to it being there and when I bought the Skyhawk, wanted one in it. I found it through some a/c salvage company in Redmond, WA. Later, someone who posted here said that it had come off his flying club's plane. The plane with student and CFI was in landing approach, final was low over a highway, and when they touched down it was on top of a pickup truck which shouldn't have been on the runway. The place that does my annuals mounted it but I'm unaware of any paperwork that might have been necessary.

HR
 

Attachments

  • DSC00795.JPG
    10.2 MB · Views: 19
Checkout_my_Six said:
cause that would imply an install....which inplies a log book entry....which also implies interpretation of minor vs. major alteration....which may or may not imply bad things from your local FSDO.:dunno:


which leads me back to velcro....which is not interpreted as an install. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Adel clamp plus wing nut. Finger removable.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
would you feel free to run bolts thru a structural spar?:yikes:
Click to expand...
Through the spar? No, not unless the holes were already there for some other approved purpose.
no bolts thru a structural frame member.....how bout P-clamps (adel clamps)?:nono:

Click to expand...
Bolted to the spar with an Adel clamp? No problem. And that is the sort of mounting I had in mind.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
and something as silly as a sun visor requiring an STC?

....who woulda thunk it? :mad2:
Click to expand...

Rosen visors are STC'd for exactly the reasons we see here, to preemptively put to bed any questions that will inevitably arise from those who completely misinterpret the regulations. The STC is not "required" it just makes things simpler.
 
Silvaire said:
Rosen visors are STC'd for exactly the reasons we see here, to preemptively put to bed any questions that will inevitably arise from those who completely misinterpret the regulations. The STC is not "required" it just makes things simpler.
Click to expand...

Exactly.



Even if STC'ed many do not include enough information to complexly install the alteration. Most radio STC I've seen have very little or no structural mounting aspects included, meaning structural approval must be obtained my the installer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top