This is really, really refreshing to hear, and (if the SLC FSDO is typical) it may signal a much more relaxed attitude by the FAA to this kind of installation. For contrast, go read the 2005 thread at
http://www.337skymaster.org/messages...&threadid=1287 starting with message #5. It's about installing an EFIS instrument in much the same way the Garmin 396 is installed, and it's full of comments about needing a 337, even if the instrument is placarded "For refernce only, not for IFR". Here are some quotes from those messages:
"A form 337 was required and filed."
"I asked my mechanic shortly after receiving the 337 forms, and he tells me he requested approval from the visiting FAA inspector, but the inspector said this is not approved. When he was shown the paperwork - he said he would look into it..... that was 3 months ago.... and I have never heard another word..."
Finally, in a telecon I had with Greg Richter, head of Blue Mountain Avionics, in January 2005 about his EFIS unit, he said a) that a 337 would be needed, and b) that one could not be guaranteed, because some FSDOs are receptive and some are not.
It may be that an EFIS, which connects to both the power bus and the pitot/static lines of the airplane, is judged by the FAA as different from a Garmin 396. But if the latter is hard wired to the power bus, I think some FSDOs may be reticent. Let's hope Paul's experience with his FSDO is a sign of things to come. In an open letter to the FAA at
www.consultresearch.com/EFIS.htm (which I didn't actively pursue) I hoped that the FAA would recognize "that technology -- and common sense -- have outpaced its well-intended refusal to allow non-certified products on certified aircraft, and [that the FAA] makes an exception in this case, permitting their installation. This approach allows the FAA to herald that it has entered the 21st century, that it is willing to change decades-old policy when technology and other factors warrant it."
Ernie