Garmin 396 Mounting Experiences

[Paul Sharp]

Thought I'd list my experiences with the Garmin 396 I bought back 6 months ago. It is a great tool and I really like it. I decided to mount mine in the panel using the Airgizmos mount ($99). Here are things I found that might be helpful for others if they wish to go this route:

1 - You need to bore out many of the holes for cables in the back of the Airgizmos bracket since things are too tight the way they ship it for things to slide in and out with success. I mounted: A) audio cable, B) GPS cable, C) XM antenna cable, and D) auxiliary 396 cable for power and interface to the 430 in my panel. I had to enlarge almost every hole to be able to get the GPS in and out with acceptable ease.

2 - If you want to interface to your 430 or 530, you have to know what port to connect to on its RS232 bus. And that means you have to ask Garmin tech support because evidently it isn't the same for every model and S/N. Then you have to know which pin that equates to on your box. (The interface I'm talking about here is the one that allows communication of flight plans from the larger box to the 396.)

3 - Then for that interface to work, you have to set the 396 to "Aviation" INPUT, and also set the RS232 port OUTPUT on the 430 (in my case) box to "Aviation" also.

4 - DO NOT use the "Audio" wire in the 396's auxiliary cable for connecting audio to your audio panel in the airplane! It is misleading and if you don't know (which most of us wouldn't) it is an amplified output to drive the speaker for the auto kit. That wire can blow audio panels, etc. Use the 1/8" audio connector on the back of the 396 and interface that (in my case I just connected it to the intercom stereo input).

5 - As for getting field approval (meaning a 337), according to Airgizmos a FSDO recently said it should be simple a log entry citing a reg about accessories or something or other. I can't remember what reg it was (Airgizmos.com guys can tell you) but I passed it on to my mechanics and they brought it up at a meeting with local A&Ps where all agreed that this was the preferred approach. So they referred to this section of the regs and made a logbook entry and that was that, except for a label that has to be added so that the panel reads "For VFR Use Only" on the 396. Mucho good compared to a form 337 that AOPA and others have been suggesting was required. Disclaimer: work with your shop people and do what they think is required, etc.

6 - Antennas can be a hassle. I used an existing external antenna from a Garmin 90 (mounted some years back) that was unused. For the XM radio, though, you're stuck due to the dumb proprietary design of the Garmin XM antenna.

I think this is a great way to go and you get a lot for a fairly small amount of $. The 396 could, if the FAA ever took off the blinders and allowed it, replace IFR-legal panel mounts because it certainly is capable enough if it had the RAIM added. Of course you can't do that now, but having the weather and terrain and all the other functions is real nice.

[J.T.Grant]

Dear Paul,
I am sure we would all like to see a picture of your panel if you have time. Also please try to locate the regulation that was used to avoid the use of a Form 337.
Many thanks
Regards
James T Grant

[Paul Sharp]

It's AC20-138A. My A&P put "Installed portable GPS, Garmin 396, in accordance with AC20-138A. Installed "GPS NOT FOR IFR USE" placard in panel. No change to W&B." The choice of wording wouldl be specific to any given A&P, of course.

[Ernie Martin]

GMAs, someone quite knowledgeable on aircraft in general and Skymasters in particular, and a past contributor to this forum, believes that the information given to Paul is in error, and that a 337 is required. This is contained in a lengthy message sent to some. I'm just the messenger here. GMAs believes that the cited installation without a 337 could get the owner in trouble. I don't want that to happen. Perhaps we need another opinion here.

Ernie

PS. While I don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable in this area to render an opinion, I do know that portable traffic-warning devices (about the size of a pack of cigarettes and costing around $600) can be used as long as they are powered by batteries or from the cigarette lighter on the airplane. When we attempted to hard-wire it to the electrical system, we were told that a 337 would be needed. FWIW.

[Paul Sharp]

I have no problem with others taking the warning. Everyone is on his own with some of these things. I'm not wild on opinions from GMAS, personally; some things I think he gets right and sometimes not (like most of us).

The FAA being what it is, though. AOPA also thinks it needs a 337. The Airbizmos' webstie says it does, as that's the way they originally thought about it. Since then they've offered this alternative opinion which evidently came from one FSDO. It's pretty common knowledge that FSDOs are all little fiefdoms that don't always agree.

So the caveat is well expressed. I just wanted to pass on the information. Each must do as he/she feels is correct/livable/defendable, etc.

Thanks.

[Paul Sharp]

Well, for interest's sake, I called the SLC FSDO and talked to the inspector who does the approvals for this type of thing. Here:s his conclusion:

This kind of installation is considered "a minor alteration" and does NOT require a field approval (i.e., a form 337). Now he admitted that this could vary from FSDO to FSDO and possibly from inspector to inspector. But this guy is going to give it to me in writing. In fact he said if I or my mechanics were to send in a form 337 approval on this he would return it as not applicable and notify us that it was "a minor alteration." He said that was the key phrase, and recommended that the logbook entry use that verbiage. If for some reason you had to make a "major" alteration to mount the thing in your aircraft I suppose that's obviously something that would have to be considered. But I doubt that would be something involved in most cases.

So if you live in the SLC Flight Standards District, you can quote Ron Gudmunson, FAA Inspector - through me, I suppose, unless you want to personally contact him to get your own documentation. But if you live in another district then I recommend you contact your own FSDO people and do accordingly.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm covered, and I'm going to get the written response from him to keep in the aircraft in case I ever get any flak from someone outside this district.

I am attaching a Word document of Appendix 5 of AC-138A, which covers this subject quite clearly.

[Ernie Martin]

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

[Ernie Martin]

GMAs (identified in an earlier message on this thread) has sent a lengthy message to some people putting into question some of the stuff that the FAA inspector told Paul. Specifically, GMAs called the SLC inspector, gave him information on Paul's installation (but not Paul's N number), and got quite a different answer from the inspector. It's sometimes hard for me to understand GMAs' way of writing, but here's an excerpt: "he said that what Paul asked of him... and wrote... was not what he responded with... and was totally taken out of context".

The inspector also told GMAs that Paul is to submit a 337 form and, based on the details of the installation, he would decide on whether one is needed or not. The inspector also indicated that the need for a 337 form may hinge on whether the Garmin 396 displays a "GPS APPROVED FOR VFR USE ONLY" message on start-up and pilot action is required to clear the message. If it does not and a placard has to be added, or if there is any drilling to install antennas, then a 337 form will be needed.

I'm just the messenger here. I'm passing this on for what it is worth.

Ernie

There's a reason GMAs is not personally engaged in this discussion on this Board.

'nuff said.

Keven
________
Coach Purses

[Paul Sharp]

Well I will state here that I am upset that he meddled in my business. It wasn't is place and I hope he hasn't needlessly complicated things for me now, to say nothing of the need to salve his ego. And anyone who read my original email would know (and I told the inspector this as well) that the GPS was placarded as specified by Appendix 5 of AC20-138A.

[J.T.Grant]

Dear Sirs,
Im know this may be a little late, but here is a local perspective on the subject of mounting non TSO'd equipment in the panels of our aircraft.
The BHM Alabama FSDO has agreed that my local avionics shop at TCL, MIDSOUTH AVIONICS, may install the GPS 296/396 series using the Airgizmos panel dock. The only paper work required is a log book entry and weight/balance update as with any other installation. My shop feels that this has opened up the door for the EFIS units we are all interested in.
As has been said, the different FSDO's are having varied views on this subject.I for one feel that anything we can do to make our aircraft safer to operate should be done. As technology continues to advance we will be forced to approach this subject again.
As for those few individuals who feel that they need to interfere in the business of other pilots, they would be wise to remember that any and all aircraft could be grounded at will by an FAA inspector as it is practically impossible to in full compliance at all times.
We need to operate safely above all other considerations, and if this new technology prevents one of our group from killing himself, and perhaps his family, then it must be put to use.
Regards
James T Grant

[Paul Sharp]

Well I finally received paperwork from the FAA inspector of the SLC FSDO. It included a short cover letter referencing the materials sent in the envelope, which were basically the kinds of things mentioned in my original posting: Appendix 5 of AC20-138A and FSAW 94-32C, the most recent copies available per his letter. Various items were highlighted but basically I conclude with no hesitation that the installation is legal and sound and a Form 337 is not required. In fact the inspector stated to me on the phone that if one were submitted he would return it with "Not Applicable" noted.

Even antenna installation is noted. There are a lot of little sticky rules listed in the sections quoted above, and some appear even contradictory, such as the need for a placard "GPS Approved for VFR Use Only" in one instance seeming to imply that a Form 337 would be required yet in the Appendix saying the addition of such a placard is in accordance with the Appendix which doesn't require a field approval (Form 337). So like many things in the regs, the FAA could conceivably argue things many ways. We are used to this and the FAA is known to be squirrely in what they want to prove at any time in court. And as we also know, the appeal process is tilted in favor of the agencies at all times.

Nevertheless I think the inspector has made it clear that he sees no reason a Form 337 is required. He told my IA/A&P the same, and as far as I'm concerned anyone out there who feels differently - in reference to my particular case - can go bark up a tree. As for another FSDO (and someone else's aicraft), well we all know that nothing can be set in concrete just because one FSDO says something.

For me the matter is ended. If it ever comes up I have paperwork and a communications trail to support my case.

[Ernie Martin]

Great news!

Ernie