MikeOH

Hmm, I'd hardly call his 'arguments' crushing by any stretch of the imagination. Also, his CV pales in comparison to the Stanford guy. The Harvard guy seems to argue that we have to do EVERYTHING because we CAN'T take ANY chances, in the absence of data saying otherwise. Well, the hard question, that the Stanford professor was getting at, is at what cost do you protect citizens? And, he raises some interesting unintended consequences beyond monetary. But, look at the horrific economic carnage already wrought on the stock market. Small businesses are already being obliterated. 15,000 cases/200 deaths, to date, due to coronavirus. Flu, to date 2019-2020: 20,000 to 40,000 DEATHS. Where is the outrage? This happens each and every year! Yet, we aren't on lockdown??? Do we really have enough data (even the Harvard guy admits we don't have much data) to impose the draconian measures we are seeing? Certainly, the beauty of imposing such measures is, after the fact, one can always speculate how much worse the deaths would have been had they not been imposed. But, what at what cost to the rest of what makes us a society?

Roughly 50,000 (300 feet/roll, about 2800 miles from LA to NY)

For another perspective (note the guy's CV; he's not just another schmuck with an opinion): https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/

Today I received a letter from the Carnegie Hero Fund Commission with notification that Thomas Hunnicutt was awarded the Carnegie Medal for his extraordinary act of heroism in pulling Mark from the crash. Very well deserved.

Interesting....I'm going to keep my short ALUMINUM tow bar. Believe me, it will bend before the truss will dent

Yeah, airlines and military that store their planes in desert climes like Mojave and Arizona will be glad to know storing them in locations next to oceans is just fine https://pomametals.com/salt-air-inland-distance-for-metal/

Not trying to discourage anyone, but make certain you are aware of ALL the ways you can be charged. They may not all be called fees...but money out of pocket by any other name! For example, they may charge due to TSA, or other security costs, etc. IOW, the 'landing fee' might just be one of many.

BWA, HA, HA! You're killin' me (IOW, get a quote BEFORE closing on the deal)

Can you disable the cellular/SIM portion and see if the interference is reduced/goes away?

If this is the OP's first plane, you are giving sage advice.

One of the first things I did after getting my Mooney was to replace all tie wraps with Adel clamps. I've seen tie wraps cut right thru steel. Sorry, not going to risk motor mounts and fuel lines for convenience.

I'm careful when pushing even with my Armstrong model

Yeah, who is the MSC that had you replace the governor over this??? So I can stay away!

Yeah, I get that. I installed a LED landing light and spent $100 to have my A&P sign it off. Maybe it won't hold up...but, if I have some anal retentive IA balk at my A&P's approval, I'll just tell him to put in the GE bulb and give me the LED light back. The hangar fairies will reinstall and I'll pick a different IA for the next year's annual

Depending on cost, you might want to do that. You have something legal to stand on.

Maybe. Yet, again, my point is that an approved 337 represents a legal, approved installation.

HAH! Okay, I'll indulge you! A TSO is not the same as a standard part. But, obviously, you're just trying to build something you can legally install. Using the 'previously approved data' would seem to be a path to getting a 337 approved. I STRONGLY disagree that 'all of these chargers are essentially the same." As a practicing EE, I can assure you they are not; especially in regards to EMI/RFI. It costs extra components to achieve low EMI/RFI performance; the cheap options tend to lack the necessary components. A part becomes standard when it conforms to the appropriate/applicable STANDARD specification (e.g. MS or AN hardwares). There is not, to my knowledge, a FAA recognized standard for USB chargers! It's more than building the same. For one thing, it is common to have certified quality systems in place to insure consistent production processes are used.

Forgetting the IP violations, I believe YOU will need to perform and submit test data to obtain a "Gorwim" TSO. You can't just say, "Well, I built mine exactly like Garmin, so I can use their TSO."

Sigh... my point is if you get a 337 approved, the install is legal.

Hmm, seems to me that if an A&P inspects and determines the part to be airworthy, signs off on a 337 (if he thinks that's what it requires)...then it is no longer an unapproved part.

You got it! "Do NOT adversely affect the performance of the equipment or article into ...." I am in no way convinced that meeting FCC Part 15 regs will assure that the item does not interfere with avionics. But, to your point, I am not convinced that everything sold as TSO/aviation approved is guaranteed not to interfere...even though it should be!

Ah, you just want to rant about how "unfair" the existing regulations are, and how illogical. Hey, I agree with you. That doesn't change the fact that they are what they are; they do NOT have to make sense to be enforceable. If you are seriously asking someone to explain FAA reasoning,...well good luck with that. I thought you wanted to know how to perform a legal install. You can install what you want yourself and hope the IA at your next annual doesn't care...and any future buyer's pre-buy inspector. You can pay a willing A&P to install and sign off whatever junk you can buy cheap off ebay. That will be legal. You can pay a willing A&P to install and sign off an approved USB. That would be legal. You can buy a cheap USB cigar lighter USB and plug it in. That would be legal.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Cliffy has provided a rather thorough explanation of how parts on an aircraft are determined to be acceptable. You appear to be playing semantic games with 'proof' that will be acceptable to you. I'll make it easy: you are NOT going to find any single reg that directly states, "Thou shall NOT use any item on an aircraft that is not TSO, PMA, or STC." Happy?

Which one of the multitude of specifications you linked is the one that defines what is required for a USB adaptor to meet aviation EMI/RFI requirements?

The issue is if the non aviation approved 'auxiliary USB power socket' introduces EMI/RFI into the nav/comm system. The device in the OPs post may, or may not, cause an interference issue. Practically speaking, I'd rather NOT buy an unknown part, pay an A&P to install and complete whatever paperwork he deems required, and THEN find out the device does, in fact, cause interference. Much easier to buy a USB adaptor that plugs into the existing cigar lighter socket. No A&P or approval required. If there's an interference issue, just plug in another brand. Rinse and repeat as required; the things are low cost. I was lucky. The PO of my plane had already found one that plugged in and doesn't cause interference