Peter wrote:
The discussion rapidly descends into one of how stupid the installer is assumed to be by the regulatory authorities. In EASA world the installer is indeed assumed to be fairly stupid, hence the more prescriptive nature of everything (words I got from a Part 21 + 145 company, BTW) than is normal in the FAA world where various generic procedures are commonly referenced and the installer doesn’t e.g. need to be supplied with a drawing for a doubler plate for an antenna.
Please, when do you stop this FAA / EASA thing. The difference is much smaller then you always suggest, or the Part 21 + 145 you always refer too. If it’s always the same Part 21 + 145 company, then either you don’t understand what they are saying, they don’t understand what your asking or for some other reason they give you incorrect information all the time.
I could answer you Jesse but I would have to post correspondence with avionics shops, which I am not going to do and you know I am not going to do it so you and others can just sit there with a smile, having attacked me in public 
Also I am not going to post details involving others. You know that too 
At least I am not posting disingenuously, which is worse, and there is a lot of it about.
I initially thought this disussion was proving useful in showing different interpretations of rules. However, if Peter wishes to pursue his vendetta against EASA and Part 21J design companies then I shall give up with this thread. I thought it still had more to offer but Peter’s comments about design rules making European technicians look stupid is just totally ridiculous so I’m out of here.
Incidentally, it may well be my former company that he keeps referring to about DER costs for his TAS – I can’t be sure as I didn’t write all of the quotes, but there would have been good reasons for it – such as not being able to get a field-approval through the London FAA office whilst using AC43-13 as the acceptable data, hence needing an 8110-3. We’re certainly not the ones who he alleges messed up the installation.
It wasn’t your company which did the installation, but you did ask for the DER package initially, only to no longer require it upon a closer examination of the situation – too late, after I went to somebody else. No Field Approval was involved; the whole job was under the Avidyne AML STC.
I have no vendetta.
wigglyamp wrote:
I thought it still had more to offer but Peter’s comments about design rules making European technicians look stupid is just totally ridiculous so I’m out of here.
Peter, I think you block many usefull topics, placing this kinds of statements over and over. A pity, because you have a very informative website.
I take my job very serious and feel offended by those statements. Seeing wigglyamps response, he seems to have similair feelings.
You didn’t read my posts Jesse. 23 or 25. Which website is informative? euroga.org or peter2000.co.uk? The 1st one isn’t “mine” as such.
The reason others won’t post their experiences here is because if they did, their shop will cut their throat off and they will have nowhere to go to get work done. So they tell me privately and sit quietly watching me get slammed. I don’t mind…
Peter wrote:
The reason others won’t post their experiences here is because if they did, their shop will cut their throat off and they will have nowhere to go to get work done. So they tell me privately and sit quietly watching me get slammed.
So true, and that’s the main problem with “open” forums.
Back to our original Program :
Airborne_Again wrote:
E.g. if there is a factory option to have a particular make and model of HSI and your aircraft only has a DG, you may install such a HSI without approval/STC.
Let’s get specific :
What is the exact Aircraft Type ?
What is the exact HSI type to be installed ?
Michael wrote:
What is the exact Aircraft Type ?C172R
What is the exact HSI type to be installed ?
No idea. That depends on what HSI Cessna chose.
As Jesse had said, I might be better off with a more modern HSI, but I’m checking out the options.
Some 10+ years ago generations of C172/182s were fitted with the KCS55 slaved compass system, comprising of the KG102A directional gyro, KMT112 fluxgate, KI525 HSI and the KA52 (?) slaving test switch.
This is a very good proven system and that is what my plane came with
and there you also see the KI229 dual-needle RMI.
I sold the entire kit on US Ebay for about $2500 but that included a spare RMI and other stuff. Somebody got a very good deal.
There is nothing wrong with this system. Because it is not being installed new anymore, the parts are easy to find in the used market and there is a lot of expertise around for fixing them. US Ebay is full of the components.
The problem is that avionics shops will never recommend installing it, because they want to install new “glass” such as the Aspen EFD1000. That delivers a lot more bang for the buck but has suffered from loads of problems, due to the amount of heat generated within its small case (no ventilation behind the panel – the back of it gets so hot you can’t touch it; I recall a funny situation at Aero EDNY a few years ago when people were nearly burning their fingers on the demo stand) and the remote sensor module is very installation procedure sensitive, with its notoriously unreliable OAT sensor. My D-ESPJ friend (the one that crashed last year) got through 3 or 4 of the Aspen boxes, one fairly recently. Aspen claim to have more or less fixed the reliability issues by now, but it isn’t clear.
OTOH there is a fair bit of wiring involved in installing a fresh KCS55 system. But I know a number in the USA who have done it and are laughing all the way to their bank, having got a great pile of proven IFR avionics for very little money.
