Panel legality question

[Seafeye]

I've seem some 170 panels that have had space cut out to mount an iPad.
How much of the panel can be modified for such a thing? What instruments will need to be maintained?
And Is the paperwork just a form 337?

Thx

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Space cut out for an IPad? Maybe a Garmin 495 using a Air Gizmo but I've never seen an IPad but I see Air Gizmo does have one.

http://www.airgizmos.com/

To answer your question the first thing to find out is if the panel you'd like to modify is a structural part of the airframe. Non-structural parts would be easier to gain approval and in fact no approval over your own may be necessary in this case depending on some factors.

But I believe the 170 instrument panel will be considered structural. And therefor an approval of some kind necessary. The approval could be an STC or an approval you gained individually on your own. A form 337 is the form used to document this approval in either case.

Part of the process you would use to gain approval is to show you are installing this mod in accordance with standard practice. That becomes a problem because installing a plastic cradle for a Garmin or an IPad, in many inspectors eyes, is not a standard practice whie in others no big deal.

The instruments you would need to retain are those minimum required for the original certification of your airplane.

[canav8]

Can you post a picture of the ipad mounted in the panel? I have never seen it before. The instrument panel is structural and it involves engineering data to be provided to the FAA for field approval. It took me forever to get the Air Gizmo dock approved but I did it.

[Seafeye]

I cropped out the N number the best I could with my phone. Here it is...

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

If I'm seeing that panel correctly, they may not have actually modified the instrument panel. What your looking at is a panel overlaying the original. I don't have the layout of the later panel memorized to say the three steam gauges on the left and those on the right aren't filling an original hole.

The overlay wouldn't be structural as it is mounted with shock mounts.

[Seafeye]

Better picture....

[Seafeye]

This is what is behind my overlay panel...

Ok. I can't post pics now.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Never thought about how big the floating panel was in the later 170B. As I said I wouldn't consider the floating panel structural. Of course on the '52 and prior the floating panel isn't that big.

You couldn't cut out the panel to hold a larger floating panel without approval.

[canav8]

Never thought about how big the floating panel was in the later 170B. As I said I wouldn't consider the floating panel structural. Of course on the '52 and prior the floating panel isn't that big.

You couldn't cut out the panel to hold a larger floating panel without approval.

Bruce, you are correct. that is the overlay that is modified and not the instrument panel. but I am curious if this has been approved. The FAA is really resistant to approve this technology. For example, on my Air Gizmo install the FAA declared it would not be approved because their Avionics professional thought that in a crash the Garmin 496 would dislodge and hit one of the occupants of the cockpit in a forward collision. It took me several weeks to get a few physists to convince the whipper snapper that he was being unreasonable. My instrument panel is modified to fit the Air Gizmo Dock. I got the guy to finally have a change of heart but he said he would not approve it and that another inspector would have to sign off on it. Talk about a month of waisted life arguing with these waist cases. So for the original poster, can you provide data to the Association for someone else to do this? If this is fixed, the next question I have, How was it secured? and how do you update it? Was the approval based on continued updating of the flight software? inquiring minds? Doug

[Pdogace]

Hey just a thought, technology is always changing. I don't know if designing a whole panel around an iPad would be worth the time and money. We use a pivot iPad case and mount from fly boys. We use it at work in a 737 and works great. You can stick it anywhere you want and if the technology changes then you have not spent a lot of time and money. In the 170 we also plug it into the intercom and use the iPad for music and fore flight. Works great. Here is a link to the product and if you want a picture of it in the 170 I will post one. Just some food for thought.

http://www.flyboys.com/pivot.html

[Ryan Smith]

The owner of that airplane is a member on here. I don't see it as being a big deal as he cut a new shock panel and that's where the iPad is mounted. I've seen far worse sins in other 170s, to include cutting the fixed panel to accommodate instruments.

[Seafeye]

Thanks for all the responses. I'm trying to not get any member here in trouble. I like what they did and would like to follow suit. Good advice about changing technologies. I was even thinking of keeping the center section of the dash in tact, not curtting the square home for the iPad and just having it held there with Velcro. Not a permanent fixture.
My 170 is an A model. Although it looks very familiar to the parts diagram for the B model.

If the Panel is shock mounted. It can't be considered a structural part, correct?
So if I get a piece of aluminum the same thickness as the original one and have it cut to specs, would it need an A&P sign off or a 337 by an IA?

[Ryan Smith]

Thanks for all the responses. I'm trying to not get any member here in trouble. I like what they did and would like to follow suit. Good advice about changing technologies. I was even thinking of keeping the center section of the dash in tact, not curtting the square home for the iPad and just having it held there with Velcro. Not a permanent fixture.
My 170 is an A model. Although it looks very familiar to the parts diagram for the B model.

If the Panel is shock mounted. It can't be considered a structural part, correct?
So if I get a piece of aluminum the same thickness as the original one and have it cut to specs, would it need an A&P sign off or a 337 by an IA?

Sounds like your panel has been upgraded at some point along the way if it looks like the IPC illustrations that Arash posted, in which case, you have a pretty easy (comparatively speaking) job. The original piano key-style panel would be a little harder to cram an iPad mount into...

[bagarre]

The panel is not structural but it holds all your flight instruments.
To make an area big enough to fit an iPad, you'd have to move some instruments around. There are rules for where certain instruments need to be in relation to the plot so the new arrangement will most likely need to comply with that.
There is an AC out there giving guidance on adding hand held devices to the panel but I can't find it right now. But it doesn't really cover relocating other instruments to make room.
Talk to your IA and see what he thinks. After all, he's the one that will but his signature next to it at annual time.

If you Velcro mount it, the conversation will just be about cutting a new floating panel with a new instrument configuration and NOT about panel mounting an iPad. A much easier conversation IMO.

I think it's a great idea and looks good in the later 170s.

[Bruce Fenstermacher]

Any work performed must be documented. If you manufactured a new panel the same as the old would just be maintenance, If you modified it by not cutting some holes it would be a minor alteration. You would have to approve the part as being an airworthy replacement under the owner produced parts rule.

Because of the changing technology and to keep some versatility built into having a moveable device, I prefer a RAM mount combination. Here is a link to my IPad set up. http://www.cessna170.org/forums/viewtop ... 171#p90983