I have been considering installing a hand held GPS with a panel dock. But, when talking to the manager of an avionics retailer here in the Pacific NW, I was told that the FAA would not approve a panel dock installation. I was happy to read postings from those who have gotten approval.

I think some people are pre-destined not to have their mods approved. Attitude, wrong IA's, or a self-fulfilling prophecy of 337 denial. As far as I know, a lot of people have been getting them approved.

In regard to approval...what's so hard about getting an injection molded plastic tray approved for installation in a panel? It is not inherently an avionic device. It might as well be the glove box you store your handheld GPS in. The GPS itself is negligible, as it's a handheld and is not a permanent fixture.

I've also heard that the deciding detail is how the power is delivered to the device, should you run it off of the fuse block.

What's to approve? The mechanic who is asking FSDO about the air gizmo is not the guy you should be dealing with in the first place. It's a minor modification. Have your mechanic install it and sign it off.

Glad to read that approval for mounting a 396 in a panel dock is not needed. The guy must have been blowing smoke and trying to get me to buy a 530.

He wasn't necessarily blowing smoke, he may just have been ignorant of the rules. Read the regs on what it takes to constitute a major mod. No way, no how is an air gizmo major. Ask a FSDO now a days and they have been instructed to say they won't give a field approval. Not because they don't want these installed but because the FAA wants mechanics to go back to being mechanics again and stop relying on the government. The way it used to be. This is a good thing.

Air Gizmo makes a nice panel mount portable GPS mount. Your A&P can put it in or you can do it your self. Just take that RTV and stick it to the glove box door. This way it won't fly around in turbulance and hit you in the head.

The reason that the FAA (select FSDO's) would not approve the install of the Air Gizmo panel docs is because there has not been flammibility/strength testing on the doc itself. It is considered a pemanent install in your panel even though the 396 is not permanent.

It is considered a major install, and requires a 337. Even AirGizmo will tell you that. Argue away. It won't do any good.

I have researched this because we had an avionics shop install one in our plane in 2006. I sent a buddy to the same radio shop in 2007 and they told him no. I asked "what gives" and was told the Boise FSDO has refused for the reasons stated above.

I came across the burn-cert info for the panel dock last week while researching something else. It came from a copy of someone elses' 337 here: Downlaod using the blu arrow.

http://bomar.biz/download.php?view.659

So I called Ron in Twin Falls (Avionics Shop) and said "hey...I found the burn cert info for the Air Gizmo " he said "yes, we came across it too and we just got our first one approved this week"

He told me that my 337 has to be redone using the new info, he's sending me a copy. The burn info is dated 2005! Huh??

They can certainly be approved but they must be done correctly...

But you can clamp the stupid thing to a primary flight control with no approval

Besides, companies like Aviat are installing the AirGizmo in their new aircraft.

Bumper,

An aircraft manufacturer can install totally unapproved parts in their aircraft by simply adding it to their approved equipment list. The FAA may then say no, but....

An example, on your airplane is the pressure switch that monitors oil pressure and activates an idiot light on the top center of the panel if the pressure drops. That is a NAPA part, by the way.

We got the AirGizmo panel dock Field Approved through the MPLS FSDO, with no sweat.

MTV

Interesting development concerning the burn data...

Perhaps those of you who've had 337's approved successfully could outline the contents of your document, so other people submitting theirs can have an idea of what wording/content got approved.

mtv wrote:Bumper,

An aircraft manufacturer can install totally unapproved parts in their aircraft by simply adding it to their approved equipment list. The FAA may then say no, but....

An example, on your airplane is the pressure switch that monitors oil pressure and activates an idiot light on the top center of the panel if the pressure drops. That is a NAPA part, by the way.

We got the AirGizmo panel dock Field Approved through the MPLS FSDO, with no sweat.

MTV

The aircraft manufacturer still has to get it FAA approved, NAPA part or not. It's not just a matter of adding it to any list. Once it's on the type certificate, you have to buy the part through the airplane manufacturer, not NAPA. It becomes an approved part when it is proscessed through the aircraft manufacturer's quality control system.
Say for example if Cessna went through the approval proscess to get the panel dock approved, if they put the panel dock on all 182's or had a note on the top drawing that the panel dock was for all 182's, then any A&P could install a panel dock in 182's as long as it was installed in accordance with Cessna's drawings.
I'm in the proscess of getting a Laser altimeter approved. EMI / EMC checks and an electrical load analysis have to be done to ensure it won't interfere with any aircraft systems, it has to be proved ergonomically, (can you see it) and it has to be proven it is lighted well enough to be seen at night and not over lit etc. Then it has to be installed in an aircraft and flown for a min. of 150 hours to demonstrate functionality and reliability. Assuming it passes all tests, the drawings and test results must be sent to tbe FAA for approval. It's this easy because in this instance the altimeter is NOT a flight instrument, it's for reference only.
In the Cessna example, you would have to buy the panel dock from them unless Cessna gave direct ship authority to whoever made it or the dock manufacturer had a PMA to manufacture the Cessna part, because when Cessna got it approved, it became their part and Cessna, not the part manufacturer assumes liability. It's for this reason that I doubt that Cessna would give direct ship authority.
Sometimes NAPA or other parts may be a best part available. For example our throttle cables are made by a company in Florida that makes control cables for outboard motors. Their cables being made for intrermittant immersion in salt water, and still to work for years are superior to "aircraft" cables, so we went through the headache of getting them approved because they were a better product.