Rosen Sunvisors - again :)

[Robert C.]

Out of an abundance of caution thought I'd run this by our Mooney braintrust: The Rosen STC includes the M20R but on their website's product description page it says "fits aircraft years 1968-1999." The M20R was certified early enough to qualify. I have a 2006 O3-GX. Can I get the Rosen visors installed under this STC? From perusing old posts it seems that some people have done it so I assume the answer is yes? 

 

Mooney Skyvisor NSA System (fits Aircraft years 1968-1999) P/N: RMY-300-1 (R1140000-0)

[A64Pilot]

Best answer I have is that it’s an STC, Rosen convinced the FAA that is was a major alteration, so it takes an IA to sign the 337, so if your IA will sign it, your good. Or said another way, you need to ask him or her.

[ragedracer1977]

Just because rosen supplies an STC doesn't mean you need one. 

[PT20J]

STCs have AMLs (Approved Model List) associated with them. Since the M20R is on the AML, that's all you need. 

It's kind of interesting why they have an STC. The FAA requires that parts used on certificated airplanes come from the original manufacturer or be standard parts (like nuts and bolts) or be made under PMA as replacement parts. Since the Rosen sunvisors are not exact replacements for the originals, the FAA in whatever region Rosen is in made them use the STC process. The FAA considers STCs to be major modifications by definition (after all the form was created for supplemental changes to the type design) and that's why it needs a 337. It's stupid. I don't know the legality of installing them without the 337 and calling it preventive maintenance (or a minor alteration). I did that years ago and no one ever noticed, but maybe there's an FAA guy out there still looking for me.

Skip

[Robert C.]

Thanks guys. I reached out to Sporty's to ask whether the Rosens would fit, given the model year qualifier. here is what their response was:

".....I got with Rosen Sun visors on this and they got back to me with, "We have discovered over the years that 1999 is the general cutoff for proper fit of the current Rosen visors without any interference issues so, I would not recommend trying to use the visors in a 2006 model......."

I take that to mean it's perfectly legal. So, does anyone have them in a later model Ovation or Acclaim? Do they interfere with anything (other than the light switches)?

 

[carusoam]

Take a look at the scrawny sun visors you have in the O...

Compare to the gigando visors that Rosen supplies....

Know that there are switches at the ceiling...

If you are good with that...

94 - 2020 will be very much the same I think... at the ceiling.

The Rosens are nice, and cover a lot of surface area...

PP thoughts only, not a Rosen Guy...

Best regards,

-a-

[ZuluZulu]

2 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Take a look at the scrawny sun visors you have in the O...

Compare to the gigando visors that Rosen supplies....

Know that there are switches at the ceiling...

If you are good with that...

94 - 2020 will be very much the same I think... at the ceiling.

The Rosens are nice, and cover a lot of surface area...

PP thoughts only, not a Rosen Guy...

Best regards,

-a-

Mine are awesome.  Often don't even need sunglasses.

[PT20J]

I have installed Rosens on a 1978 and 1994 M20J. They fit, but they are large and don't tuck away neatly. I like the large size because they block more sun. But, it would be very easy to cut down the plastic part to make them stow better if desired. I should think this would apply to any Mooney model, but you could also call Rosen directly to find out what the exact issues were with later models. Another option might be to see if @DonMuncy can make you a set. I hear his are very nice.

[carusoam]

20 minutes ago, ZuluZulu said:

Mine are awesome.  Often don't even need sunglasses.

It seems I may have insulted both styles of visors evenly...   

I don’t wear sunglasses, which can be more confusing....

I have the tiny visors that came with the O1...

 

ZZ,

Which visors do you have?

-a-

[Hank]

Can't you just cut larger pieces of smoked plexi and put them the original factory holder? Cut up an Amazon box to see what fits your plane then trace into plexiglas, saw it out and sand the edges to be smooth.

When you are happy, send a check for 1/4 of a set of Rosens, I'll spell my name for you . . . .  

[Niko182]

5 hours ago, Robert C. said:

Out of an abundance of caution thought I'd run this by our Mooney braintrust: The Rosen STC includes the M20R but on their website's product description page it says "fits aircraft years 1968-1999." The M20R was certified early enough to qualify. I have a 2006 O3-GX. Can I get the Rosen visors installed under this STC? From perusing old posts it seems that some people have done it so I assume the answer is yes? 

 

Mooney Skyvisor NSA System (fits Aircraft years 1968-1999) P/N: RMY-300-1 (R1140000-0)

@DonMuncymakes some that seem as is they are sized more ideal to fit in the M20 cabin. Also cheaper, and avoid using an STC. I'm eventually going to pick up a set but I have other priorities as of now that need to be worked out on the plane.

 

 

[ZuluZulu]

2 hours ago, carusoam said:

It seems I may have insulted both styles of visors evenly...   

I don’t wear sunglasses, which can be more confusing....

I have the tiny visors that came with the O1...

 

ZZ,

Which visors do you have?

-a-

Rosens

[A64Pilot]

Ref the STC thing, I believe it’s some sort of marketing game to try to convince people that the outrageous price they are paying for an item is justified, you know an X has to have an STC, so that’s why a piece of plastic is so expensive.

For instance there are electric clocks that have STC’s, so to remove one brand of electric clock and replace it with another is an STC? That’s a Major, really?

[201Steve]

I would punch the face of anyone who inquired about the legal status of my sun visor. Be it an IA during annual or the FAA president himself. 
 

ok maybe not but would be thinking about it

[Niko182]

Just now, 201Steve said:

I would punch the face of anyone who inquired about the legal status of my sun visor. Be it an IA during annual or the FAA president himself. 
 

ok maybe not but would be thinking about it

What is the legal status of your sun visors?

[201Steve]

Just now, Niko182 said:

What is the legal status of your sun visors?

Consider face punched. 

[carusoam]

A thousand MSers laughing out loud... nearly in unison.... getting funny looks from their family... 

To have somebody rat you out over a set of visors....

You have to really annoy them about something else first...

We have a thread that details how not to annoy the FAA... titled F... the FAA....

The FAA has more time and money than any one MSer... you have to pick your battles judiciously...

Best regards,

-a-

[A64Pilot]

The FAA of course has a definition of what constitutes a major alteration, and in my opinion, you just can’t make sun visors fit that definition, anymore than you can the clock.

‘It really does boil down to the installers opinion as to whether or not an item requires a 337 or not, unless of course it’s plainly covered by the FAA definition.

‘What I cannot understand and have asked a couple of inspectors to explain how me clamping a several pound device to my flight control system isn’t a major, but changing brands of electric clock is? I’m speaking of a Garmin 696 clamped to the yoke tube.

Edited March 9, 2021 by A64Pilot

[PT20J]

The FAA allows the use of portable devices. When you attach them to the airplane, it falls into a grey area. Generally if the attachment is not permanent then it's not considered a modification. It would be hard to argue that Velcro is permanent. Yoke mounts are probably OK, but who knows for sure? It's really good that the FAA has left this to common sense. If the FAA were going to write a spec for yoke mounts, then it would get complicated and probably drive the cost up considerably.

Whether a manufacturer's product requires a STC or just a PMA is up to the FAA and the decision is made regionally. I believe that FAA policy is that all STCs require a 337. Here's a quote from Great Lakes Aero FAQ explaining why their thicker side windows don't need an STC.

Our regional FAA has determined where STC's are to be applied.  Keep in mind that not requiring an STC keeps the paperwork down and a 337 form is not necessary.  We have been told by our regional FAA office that STC's have been overused for minor changes, thicker side windows are considered to be a minor change by our regional FAA office (Chicago).

[A64Pilot]

Yes an STC is what it says it is a Supplement to the Type Certificate of the airplane, in other words it’s changing the Type Certificate, so of course that makes it a major, which is documented with a 337 as majors whether repairs or alterations are documented.

It’s tough to make the case that sun visors or a clock change the type certificate, however it’s not tough at all to make the case that adding weight to a flight control system is a major alteration, yet it’s not

‘The argument I’ve heard used was that these mounts use ordinary means of attachment, if tools were used, then it’s a modification. So clamp a camera onto the strut of my Cessna? Do so and the FSDO will have apoplectic fit, I can assure you, but no tools were used.

It’s a flimsy case, the FAA ought in my opinion deny these silly STC’s, they always claim they are overworked, well off load the silly STC’s and concentrate on the real ones, like big tires, engine changes, different props, the list is endless.

Your example of thicker windows is a good one, they are stiffer and it could be argued that being stiffer changes the load path and being heavier changes the stress on the mounting etc. Much easier to argue thicker windshields are a major than a sun visor or a replacement clock.

Yay Chicago, they made a good call, in my opinion

See what I think is going on is that by having an STC, it makes it more difficult for others to knock off Rosen visors, so they can charge outrageous prices and others won’t come in with as good or a better product for half the price.

‘But that gets into an area that I’m not well versed in, if you have PMA, then you can manufacture say Cessna or Mooney parts, assumption is that you can’t manufacture someone’s STC though

 

Edited March 10, 2021 by A64Pilot

[A64Pilot]

This is the FAA definition of a Major Alteration, someone please tell me how Sun Visors or clocks fit this?

Major alteration means an alteration not listed in the aircraft, aircraft engine, or propeller specifications -

(1) That might appreciably affect weight, balance, structural strength, performance, powerplant operation, flight characteristics, or other qualities affecting airworthiness; or 

(2) That is not done according to accepted practices or cannot be done by elementary operations. 

Minor alteration means an alteration other than a major alteration.

[A64Pilot]

So what I’m saying is in my opinion and as the guy who ultimately is responsible in determining whether it’s a minor or major, I say make you own visors if y9u don’t want to pay $500 and install them as a minor with a logbook entry if your rated to do so, and if not talk to your A&P and ask him or her to.

[Alan Maurer]

Hello, I bought them from Rosen for my 2008 Ovation and installed them myself. It was easy. I don't remember if there was any paperwork issue of any sort.

 

[carusoam]

A64,

I think you may have left out one key piece of information...

With regards to hanging things on the plane that are portable...

Hanging a giant GPS on the yoke can be problematic...

The key detail where the FAA leaves us an out....

Is the ability to remove it, while in flight, without having to break out a tool box...

Sooo....

If the giant GPS starts causing unusual control oscillations.... disconnect, unplug, throw in the back seat...

The plane is essentially back in accordance with its design...

The PiC is deemed capable of being able to handle such a wild occurrence...

The video camera mounted on a strut... may be quite a long reach from where the PIC is seated... and kind of leaves the PIC in a tough place when having to explain what he did...

 

Fortunately with cameras... we have learned plenty of new detail about how robust our planes actually are...

An how insensitive they are to flutter... (so far)

ya know? 

PP thoughts only, not a mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

[Little Dipper]

I'm bought a set of Rosens last summer for my Ovation and am thinking about getting rid of them.   They are too damn big.