In recent years I have begun to be annoyed by random application of penalties in regards to installed equipment. The FAA uses a heavy hand in some of the approvals, and none whatsoever in others.
One case in point might be the recent AOPA article about Syn Vis on the ipad. They mention the little portable AHRS. Just two screws to attach it to the floor of the Husky. Well, didn't that just become a part of the airplane and not portable. 337? I doubt it. They also mention Wi Fi (maybe they meant Bluetooth)
Wi Fi attached to the plane was most likely not approved. I know one shop at Van Nuys who get their FSDO to sign off Wi Fi. The rest of the country... good luck. A portable Garmin stuck in one of those plastic docks we all see. I have seen 337's for the dock. OK, good so far. Now, what about that little set of wires from the Garmin portables over to the transponder? Looks like hard wiring into the system to me. Does it still meet the rules of portable? What is the point of my rant? It is this: There are a myriad of products out there that work well and arguably could save your bacon in tough conditions. Little companies can't afford the $7 mil for example that the first syn vis company spent to get certified and on an AML. So, the non-experimental crowd either goes without.... or enters the gray area to hope they don't get ramp checked.
At Copperstate last year, I saw a beautiful Dynon in the panel of a C180. No backup instruments anywhere to be seen. I am sure it worked great... but was completely illegal. If the FAA has hearburn with certified planes and feels experimental is the answer, then let us all apply for experimental on our planes and put on the appropriate placards and warnings. Case closed. Neighbor wants to fly with you...let them read the warning and buckle up. What do you guys think out there?

I like your logic BUT! I don't think you can placard your plane experimental and be ok in the eyes of the great FAA father.

I can see this both ways. I had to redo a poorly done Field Approval from 25 years
ago that required 4 new Field Approvals. It took lots of time and
some money but the end result was better.
Then I see people that only look at cost and do some really bad things mechanically,
Do Canadians have the right idea with owner maintenance?
I wish the FAA would get busy and appoint some Vintage DAR's
so we could keep our planes up to date without some of the heavy handed
Interaction with some in the Government.
Dave

Neighbor wants to fly with you...let them read the warning and buckle up. What do you guys think out there?

Sounds good to me. Many other things that should be but aren't.

Just placard it "illegal" and call it close enough.

Actually, that's why the make velcro....

And, Dynon EFDs were getting field approved in a couple of places until someone in engineering realized that they have to tap into the pitot/static system for air data. End of field approvals for those.

We had to placard them "Not for primary information". I wish I'd have gotten one done in my airplane.

And, they are NOT illegal, assuming they were field approved initially, unless the fed wants to go through the hassle (and risk) of rescinding the FA.

MTV

A friend of mine recently (within the last year) had one of the small Dynons (3-1/8") field approved in his Swift. He had a copy of an approved 337 from a Dynon installation in a C180 as part of his documentation. The FAA didn't want to do it, he had to resubmit several times but he got his dander up about it so was finally able to outlast the bastards & get it signed off. It is "not for primary information" so he had to retain his VFR-required instruments (airspeed altimeter compass) but other than the dynon he has no gyro's except maybe a T&B.

One thing that occurs to me on this topic is the sharing of valuable 337's. Just like Judges, the FAA doesn't feel comfortable doing anything new.... if someone else did it and signed it, you have a better chance. We, as a group could have a topic posting copies of 337's for a variety of modifications. Unlike an STC, where someone owns it and wants money for it.... these copies would be free for the asking. With some persistence, maybe an owner can apply based on previous approvals and get some success. The Dynon is a good example. In general, the FAA is trying to reduce 337 applications. There are training courses going on showing the sometimes subtle differences between major and minor mods. The FAA wants minor mods to be log entries only by A&P/IA's to reduce federal workload (boo hooooo)
In the case of big tires, electronics, VG's camera mounts, STOL kits and other fun stuff.... I don't think we will soon see an end to field approvals.
Back on my original topic--- I sure would like to see EAA start a campaign similar to AOPA and the third class medical debate... wherein they lobby the FAA to allow us the option to put older certificated planes in experimental category. It is done all the time by avionics manufacturers to develop new products. Usually it is in the market survey subcategory of experimental and is a time limited approval. We as owners, should be allowed to change over to experimental like the kit builders and apply generally accepted new products without the burden of STC processes.
The FAA would have less liability and less paperwork. The lawyers would continue on as always and just chase any money around... after an accident. Have a great upcoming holiday out there... and stay safe.

OK, how about splitting the FAA into two entities. The FAA and the CAA (civil aviation administration). If you fly commercially you are held to the almighty FAA, if you fly your kid you are held to the CAA. The CAA would allow such things as more modern engines (you know like out of the 50s) to be installed on your aging bird that you can't even find that engine for with a drawing and analysis from an engineer.

Oh and by the way. Neither agency can have more employees (combined) than is currently in the FAA to date.

d.grimm wrote:I can see this both ways. I had to redo a poorly done Field Approval from 25 years ago that required 4 new Field Approvals. It took lots of time and some money but the end result was better....
Dave

Why did you have "to redo a poorly done Field Approval from 25 years ago..."? Approved is approved - isn't it? It's not like the FAA is going to revoke it and suddenly have more paperwork to do themselves. Can you provide more details of what was involved or going on in your example?

flightlogic wrote:The FAA would have less liability and less paperwork. The lawyers would continue on as always and just chase any money around... after an accident. Have a great upcoming holiday out there... and stay safe.

My question here is "how can the FAA have "less liability" than the "zero" they already have? Nothing is ever their fault, at least according to them. On the other hand, if you happen to ask the NTSB....

One thing that occurs to me on this topic is the sharing of valuable 337's. Just like Judges, the FAA doesn't feel comfortable doing anything new.... if someone else did it and signed it, you have a better chance. We, as a group could have a topic posting copies of 337's for a variety of modifications. Unlike an STC, where someone owns it and wants money for it.... these copies would be free for the asking.

This is done on the Cessna170 site. They are available to members and a small fee ($5.00 to 15.00 or so) is charged to help support the site.

I would help. With submission and purchase.

Speaking of illegal, every time I see this bridge I really want to fly under it , would that be illegal Hmmm let's see taking off or landing phase

Glidergeek wrote:Speaking of illegal, every time I see this bridge I really want to fly under it , would that be illegal Hmmm let's see taking off or landing phase

I give up. Where is that bridge?

I-15 just south of hwy 76 aka lilac bridge

Aw, go for it! Then do a low pass at the border patrol checkpoint north of there near Rainbow!

hotrod150 wrote:Aw, go for it! Then do a low pass at the border patrol checkpoint north of there near Rainbow!

He does have small N numbers. And they are kinda hard to see

I haven't seen the wetback check open in months. But I could buzz the truck scales

cessnaford wrote:OK, how about splitting the FAA into two entities. The FAA and the CAA (civil aviation administration). If you fly commercially you are held to the almighty FAA, if you fly your kid you are held to the CAA. The CAA would allow such things as more modern engines (you know like out of the 50s) to be installed on your aging bird that you can't even find that engine for with a drawing and analysis from an engineer.

Oh and by the way. Neither agency can have more employees (combined) than is currently in the FAA to date.

This is a great idea in my mind. Having my 65 year old two seat puddle jumper regulated by the same orginazation that governs the airlines just seems inefficient. The only thing we share is the air.

Jaerl wrote:Just placard it "illegal" and call it close enough.

Wiping my screen clean now.

Dynons, Trutrak autopilots, etc in certificated airplanes are what we call BI equipment: "between inspections".