AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gm
January 02, 2007 - January 09, 2007
to poorly crafted duct drains when slip stream driven
droplets propagated all the way into the radios.
Unless your cooling air inlet is right next to your
cabin heat outlet, cabin ambient air is sufficient.
Recall that the effectiveness of cooling air has
more to do with motion than with temperature
differential. The most valuable task the cooling
air blower can serve is to CIRCULATE air at
almost any lower temperature.
>- Should it be ON everytime the avionics are ON, or should it have an
>independent On-Off switch? Is there any kind of thermostatic automatic switch
?
A switch (thermostatic or otherwise) not installed
is not going to require future maintenance or be forgotten
at a bad time. I'd recommend that cooling blowers be
powered from the main bus and come alive anytime the
airplane is powered up. I think that's what we do
with all avionics cooling in the big ships. If there's
a possibility that any radio is on, the blower(s) are
on too. No switches.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: running SD-8 without regulator |
>
>The next time I have the RV cowl off, I'd like to go ahead and install
>the SD-8 dynamo, mostly to check for any interference issues with the
>nearby P-mag (older style case). It may be awhile longer before I am
>ready to tackle the larger task of mounting and wiring in all the
>regulator and relay stuff to support the SD-8. Is there any potential
>harm to operating this device with nothing at all attached to its
>terminals? I'd think not, but I'd rather make sure.
>
>-Bill B
No, there are no potential hazards to the alternator for
letting it run open-circuit.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Back-Up Battery ground (The multi-word answer) |
Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
> In other words, if this battery has real value as a backup
> energy source, does this not speak poorly of any efforts
> to make the additional battery unnecessary in the first place?
>
> Bob . . .
>
Not necessarily. With an electrically dependant, auto-conversion engine
you have ignition, control computers and fuel pumps which must all be
fed a healthy diet of electrons at somewhere around 15A. Even with the
'backup' battery, it would not be possible to burn through all the
usable fuel on board in case of an alternator failure. A 20Ah unit
would be marginal at best. The extra battery capacity in this case
carries very real benefits.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Back-Up Battery ground (The multi-word answer) |
>
>
>Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>>
>> In other words, if this battery has real value as a backup
>> energy source, does this not speak poorly of any efforts
>> to make the additional battery unnecessary in the first place?
>>
>> Bob . . .
>Not necessarily. With an electrically dependant, auto-conversion engine
>you have ignition, control computers and fuel pumps which must all be fed
>a healthy diet of electrons at somewhere around 15A. Even with the
>'backup' battery, it would not be possible to burn through all the usable
>fuel on board in case of an alternator failure. A 20Ah unit would be
>marginal at best. The extra battery capacity in this case carries very
>real benefits.
Not the point. This is a 4.5 a.h. "backup" battery installed
in lieu of dead-lead as ballast. The question before us is
to ascribe value in having "ballast" assume lifetime requirements
for maintenance. This assumes the rest of the electrical system is
already blessed with load analysis, failure mode effects analysis and
preventative maintenance to insure that all other battery(ies)
will meet their intended purposes as sources of energy to back
up an alternator failure.
In other words, what is the return on investment for "useful"
ballast as opposed to "dead-lead."
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics cooler |
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>>- Is it only necessary when you operate in hot climates?
>
> Difficult to answer because so much is dependent upon"
> how many radios are in your stack? . . .
I will have 1 Comm Radio, 1 Transponder, 1 Garmin 296 and 1 Car radio/CD
player in the stack, plus 1 single display EFIS and the Auto-Pilot control
module.
> how well does air circulate around them naturally?
I believe (I'm not sure) that air will not circulate naturally, or very
little, behind my RV-9A panel.
> Does your cabin heat outlet blow on the radios in cool weather?
No. Besides the "normal" fresh air outlets, which are in the usual places in
side-by-side RV's, at the bottom corners of the panel, I will also have 2
separate heat outlets, situated right below the others, which will heat the
cabin, sourced from an hot coolant heater blower ( Eggenfellner Subaru
engine)
>>- Which avionics do need this cooling? Xpdr, Comm radio, EFIS, GPS,
>>Auto-Pilot controller?
>
> ......... Whether or not any particular radio is vulnerable to
> suffocation needs to come from the manufacturer. .....
> Check the devices you're installing for their DO-160 qualification
> ratings.
I will try to find that, however I am installing an ICOM A-200 (or perhaps,
if permitted by future income, a GARMIN SL-30) and a NARCO AT-160 (or a
GARMIN GTX-330, when mode S becomes mandatory in Europe).
>>- Is it mounted vertically, horizontally or either?
>
> Cooling fans are not orientation sensitive . . .
OK, if I install it, I will try to avoid puting it horizontally with the
inlet facing upwards, only to avoid the fan from throwing out dust or any
screw that could fall from the avionics :-)
>>- Is it sufficient to use air from inside the cockpit as the source, or is
>>it necessary to bring fresh air from the aircraft's exterior ?
>
> Obviously, cooler is better . . . but be wary of external
> air sources. We filled a few radios with rain water due
> to poorly crafted duct drains when slip stream driven
> droplets propagated all the way into the radios.
Yeah! Somebody else has already warned me against that possiblity
>>- Should it be ON everytime the avionics are ON, or should it have an
>>independent On-Off switch? Is there any kind of thermostatic automatic
>>switch ?
>
> A switch (thermostatic or otherwise) not installed
> is not going to require future maintenance or be forgotten
> at a bad time. I'd recommend that cooling blowers be
> powered from the main bus and come alive anytime the
> airplane is powered up. I think that's what we do
> with all avionics cooling in the big ships. If there's
> a possibility that any radio is on, the blower(s) are
> on too. No switches.
Not even to have the possibility to turn it Off in a
no-alternator-low-battery-power emergency situation?
Thanks
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Avionics cooler |
>> I'd recommend that cooling blowers be
>> powered from the main bus and come alive anytime the
>> airplane is powered up....
>
> Not even to have the possibility to turn it Off in a
> no-alternator-low-battery-power emergency situation?
>
Carlos and all,
In that case, you'll be on E-bus only, so the fan will be off since it
is powered from the main power bus.
Or did you install no E-bus at all ?
Best wishes to all,
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics cooler |
>
>
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>
>
>>>- Should it be ON everytime the avionics are ON, or should it have an
>>>independent On-Off switch? Is there any kind of thermostatic automatic switch
?
>>
>> A switch (thermostatic or otherwise) not installed
>> is not going to require future maintenance or be forgotten
>> at a bad time. I'd recommend that cooling blowers be
>> powered from the main bus and come alive anytime the
>> airplane is powered up. I think that's what we do
>> with all avionics cooling in the big ships. If there's
>> a possibility that any radio is on, the blower(s) are
>> on too. No switches.
>
>Not even to have the possibility to turn it Off in a
>no-alternator-low-battery-power emergency situation?
If cooling is on the main bus and devices
needed for comfortable termination of flight
are on the e-bus, then cooling is one of those
loads automatically shed when the alternator
is inoperative.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Back-Up Battery |
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
> Now that there's a bit more time to consider the questions,
> let's do a quick review of the techniques and rationale for
> installing "backup" batteries:
>
> When you use the phrase "backup" there is an implied
> notion that what ever power supply is normally expected
> to carry some load aboard the aircraft suffers a low order
> of confidence that it will always be there to do its job.
>
> The classic idea of a "backup" power source has been
> with us since day-one. The engine drive generator or
> alternator is primary, the battery is a secondary energy
> source.
>
> With the popularity of all-electric panels on the
> rise,
I must say that my airplane will be double-electrically-dependant. I have a
Subaru electrically-dependant engine and an all-electric panel (well, I'll
still have 2 "steam-gauges": Altimeter and Airspeed Indicator). Since I have
no possibility of installing a second alternator or generator, and the
engine factory installation calls for 2 (equal) batteries, no wonder I am
thinking about a 3rd (small battery), also fuelled by the possibility of
having to put some wheight in the butt.
Opposite to your opinion, I think that, if I have to put some "dead" lead
down there, why not put some "live" lead (aka battery), which will do both
jobs? I believe it's a very good return on investment, like you love to say.
>
> There was some concern about "ground loops" . . .
> Ground loops are not created by the mis-application of
> a battery ground. Ground loops are the mis-application
> of grounds in TWO systems . . . the antagonist and
> victim systems. For the most part, ground loops are
> avoided by careful crafting of the wiring for potential
> victims . . . so while battery charge/discharge
> currents for the small stand-by battery under discussion
> are a potential source for miniscule noise currents
> carried on the battery's ground path, good grounding
> practice for potential victims makes the ground-loop
> question moot. So yes, the battery can share a ground
> to the airframe with all other non-victim devices
> that might also ground to that location.
>
OK, thanks. I think I already got the "ground loop" thing.
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | switching from old to new |
Hello,
I began wiring the RV-9 awhile back. I knew nothing about wiring, it terrified
me. I bought the Aeroelectric bible and the Z plans seemed like a maze into which
I spun out. So I did what I thought was the easy thing and bought the Van's
electric harness and all the switchable circuit breakers, the whole she-bang.
(Yeah, Yeah, I know, bad move.)
I installed the pre-made wire harness and while doing so continued to struggle
through reading the "book" and read posts to this list. Somewhere along the line
a little spark in the back of my brain began to grow into a light that allowed
me a tiny glimpse into what you folks are talking about.
Last weekend I finally got a bigger fire going and decided to can the Van's wire
harness (nothing wrong with that approach unless you want to modify) and do
the Z-11 Plan.
Here are the questions.
Are any of the switches that came with the Van's package any good for my new Z-11
plan?
Or is it better to buy all new switches and start fresh?
Any other words of wisdom, about wiring are greatly appreciated.
Blue Skies,
Mike Ice
Anchorage, Alaska
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Back-Up Battery |
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: Back-Up Battery
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
> Now that there's a bit more time to consider the questions,
> let's do a quick review of the techniques and rationale for
> installing "backup" batteries:
>
> The classic idea of a "backup" power source has been
> with us since day-one. The engine drive generator or
> alternator is primary, the battery is a secondary energy
> source.
>
Opposite to your opinion, I think that, if I have to put some "dead" lead
down there, why not put some "live" lead (aka battery), which will do both
jobs? I believe it's a very good return on investment, like you love to say.
Maybe it needs to be presented in another way.
Carlos, the issues that (I think) Bob is trying to address is not so much
about dead vs. live weight but the utility of having a battery that is so
small in capacity to be of marginal "real" value. The battery will require
periodic maintenance, so you will need reasonable access. Will that access
then require additional modifications to the plans/airframe. Now, again look
at your return on the modification. Add to that the associated circuitry and
wiring.
Is this mounting engineering task worthy of 4.5 Ah?
Recently I was researching another issue regarding electrical code and
aircraft hangars and (can't remember if it was in FARs or NEC) came across
some rules that prohibit charging aircraft batteries installed in the
airframe. (that finally answered a nagging question I'd always had as to why
my external power connector was electrically isolated from the ships
battery).
The "back-up" system installed in the 182 is a substantial system. I don't
recall the exact AH capacity of the battery but it is physically at least as
large as the primary battery under the cowl. Therefore there is an access
panel on the tail for the purpose of servicing the battery and avionics rack
there. So the system in the Cessna is a substantial piece of engineering,
but also quite massive.
It appears from your descriptions that the battery would actually end up
being just added system AH capacity, not a true "back-up electrical power
source". The Cessna system will power the entire avionics system for a solid
45 min. There is a test circuit that is part of every preflight, in order to
verify that the system is charged and available (another piece of
engineering that a reliable back-up would reasonably require).
Now for the few pounds of weight needed for balance, does it still seem
reasonable to jump these hurdles? I guess there still are personal
considerations involved, an aversion to unitaskers, or having something that
is just weight on an airplane where dead weight just seems like a waste of
useful load. But honestly, YOUR efforts would be better spent on
construction of your aircraft. This is not sarcasm, or ridicule, but a
discussion of the merits of an effort. Back up systems are great, but they
entail a level of engineering/cost/maintenance that needs consideration
before proceeding.
Believe me, in my profession(machine tool manufacturing), we constantly look
for more efficiency and utility in our equipment, and in that quest I've
come up with a lot of ideas, not all of which stood up under scrutiny.
Fortunately there were others to look at my ideas and point out factors I
may not have been aware of, or looked at from another viewpoint. I'm
grateful that I was saved the embarrassment of having spent time and MONEY
on features of little practical use.
Bob is correct in that all of the contactors/protection needs to be
considered in your endeavor, some are regulatory as well as for your safety.
Craig Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Back-Up Battery |
From: "C Smith" <pilot4profit(at)sbcglobal.net>
> The battery will require periodic maintenance, so you will need reasonable
> > access. Will that access then require additional modifications to the
> plans/airframe.
Not at all. It will be installed on the tail "deck" of the RV-9A, between
the 2 halfs of the horizontal stabilizer. I don't know if you are familiar
with it, but that zone is covered by a fiberglass fairing which makes the
aerodynamic transition between the H.S. and the vertical stabilizer, and is
attached with some 12 screws easily removable.
> Add to that the associated circuitry and wiring.
Very simple. Since I was "authorized" by the experts-on-duty to connect the
(-) terminal to the local ground, I will only have to squeeze in an AWG#14
wire from the tail to the instrument panel (in fact, I already did, in case
I decide for this battery), and connect it there to the avionics I decide to
have back-up power, and to the main battery, through a Diode, to take
charge.
> Is this mounting engineering task worthy of 4.5 Ah?
I don't know how to do the exact calculations, but I suppose that it will be
enough to power the Comm Radio, the Transponder, the EFIS and the Auto-pilot
(or some of these 4, depending on the pilot's decision) for the 45 min you
mentioned. Well maybe I should go for something a little larger (6 Ah ?),
providing it stays within the C.G. limits
> It appears from your descriptions that the battery would actually end up
> being just added system AH capacity, not a true "back-up electrical power
> source".
Not so, as you can see from the above descriptions. My idea is to use this
battery always at the start-up procedure, to initially power the EFIS (to
keep the battery used and to control its voltage), and from then, remain as
a pure back-up only for the avionics, in case of alternator-Off and the
engine-ignition-fuel pumps running only on the Main and/or Aux batteries.
> There is a test circuit that is part of every preflight, in order to
> verify that the system is charged and available (another piece of
> engineering that a reliable back-up would reasonably require).
Above answered
> Now for the few pounds of weight needed for balance, does it still seem
> reasonable to jump these hurdles?
Yes, it does to me. Does it already seem to you (no sarcasm here, I mean,
after my explanations) ?
> But honestly, YOUR efforts would be better spent on
> construction of your aircraft.
Don't worry, I'm not spending my efforts on this. Today I was riveting my
canopy
> Back up systems are great, but they entail a level of
> engineering/cost/maintenance that needs consideration before
> proceeding.
That's exactly the reason why I brought the subject to this knowleadgeble
forum ....
> Bob is correct in that all of the contactors/protection needs to be
> considered in your endeavor, some are regulatory as well as for your
> safety.
What I did was to install a 10 or 15A (I can't remember which) fuse on the
tail, at the positive wire, right "after" the (+) future battery terminal.
Isn't that enough protection?
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics cooler |
Bon soir Gilles
(Fait-il beaucoup de froid Grenoble?)
My system is based on the ExpBus, which in case you don't know, is a
premanufactured electric buss system (which, by the way, 'letric Bob doesn't
recommend).
But since my system has a Main Battery buss and an Aux Battery buss, I will
connect it to the Main, therefore it will also be OFF in case of an electric
emergency.
Carlos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilles Thesee" <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics cooler
> <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
>
>
>>> I'd recommend that cooling blowers be
>>> powered from the main bus and come alive anytime the
>>> airplane is powered up....
>>
>> Not even to have the possibility to turn it Off in a
>> no-alternator-low-battery-power emergency situation?
>>
> Carlos and all,
>
> In that case, you'll be on E-bus only, so the fan will be off since it is
> powered from the main power bus.
> Or did you install no E-bus at all ?
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Regards,
> Gilles Thesee
> Grenoble, France
> http://contrails.free.fr
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics cooler |
Tom S., James H., Charlie E., Bob N.
Thanks for your input. I will try to measure the panel back temperature with
all the avionics paraphernalia already working (which will only happen, very
conveniently, in the next summer) and I'll decide accordingly.
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Back-Up Battery |
>
>
>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>> Now that there's a bit more time to consider the questions,
>> let's do a quick review of the techniques and rationale for
>> installing "backup" batteries:
>>
>> When you use the phrase "backup" there is an implied
>> notion that what ever power supply is normally expected
>> to carry some load aboard the aircraft suffers a low order
>> of confidence that it will always be there to do its job.
>>
>> The classic idea of a "backup" power source has been
>> with us since day-one. The engine drive generator or
>> alternator is primary, the battery is a secondary energy
>> source.
>>
>> With the popularity of all-electric panels on the
>> rise,
>
>I must say that my airplane will be double-electrically-dependant. I have
>a Subaru electrically-dependant engine and an all-electric panel (well,
>I'll still have 2 "steam-gauges": Altimeter and Airspeed Indicator). Since
>I have no possibility of installing a second alternator or generator, and
>the engine factory installation calls for 2 (equal) batteries, no wonder I
>am thinking about a 3rd (small battery), also fuelled by the possibility
>of having to put some wheight in the butt.
>
>Opposite to your opinion, I think that, if I have to put some "dead" lead
>down there, why not put some "live" lead (aka battery), which will do both
>jobs? I believe it's a very good return on investment, like you love to say.
If you already have two batteries, how about moving one of them aft
to satisfy W&B requirements without having to add all the overhead
for installing and maintaining a third battery?
Only you can make the judgement as to whether the proposed, third,
itty-bitty battery offers a good return. But after years of
rubbing elbows with folks in the business, I know what reactions
we'd get if we add one more line item to the maintenance list
for continued air-worthiness . . . especially in view of the
relatively small benefits offered by a 4.5 a.h. device.
This is why I wanted to discuss it in more detail. I like it
if everyone monitoring the List understands all the ramifications
for such an installation and understand further that I would
recommend avoiding such an installation until all the alternatives
and cost of ownership issues have been evaluated. I.e., is there
a simpler way to get the job done?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Back-Up Battery |
>
>
> I don't know how to do the exact calculations, but I suppose that it
> will be enough to power the Comm Radio, the Transponder, the EFIS and
> the Auto-pilot (or some of these 4, depending on the pilot's decision)
> for the 45 min you mentioned. Well maybe I should go for something a
> little larger (6 Ah ?), providing it stays within the C.G. limits
Carlos
As a guess off the top of my head, consider that if you intend to draw
say 4 amps out of a 4.5 AH battery then you will only get about 2 AH or
30 minutes with a new fully charged battery. A battery has high internal
losses when working that hard. There are discharge charts available for
many batteries that will give you a better approximation.
If your main batteries are say 16 AH then they won't run the run the
engine for much more than 30 min. each if you are drawing nearly 15
amps. You'd likely do a bit better with the batteries paralled. Adding
another 4 amps to those main batteries will only shorten the engine
running by a few minutes. You might get more benefit per lb. from upping
one of the main batteries to 20 AH than from adding another 4.5 AH battery.
However your weight and balance is certainly another consideration if
not your main concern with this. Yet another
important consideration will be system management though. If you
are ever in the situation where the battery capacity is that critical I
would urge you to make the system as easy to operate as possible and
ideally zero management. I would not want to have to manage 3 batteries
in the heat of the moment... Sizing the third battery so that it always
runs your critical instruments (E bus) and will outlast the engine might
be worth considering.
Also there are many ways to power a second generator on a subaru if you
decide you want more electrical capacity. I've even seen accessories
driven off a small flat belt from the prop shaft. I used two small
multi-v belts off the oem pulley on my ej22 and also I directly drive a
vacuum pump off the pulley end of a camshaft.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Anderson" <eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Back-Up Battery |
Having flown an "electric dependent" Mazda rotary powered installation since
1998, I understand the concern about not having enough electrons along if
the electron pump stops working. However, I do agree with Bob concerning
the very marginal benefit vs complexity of a third small battery. I started
out with a modification of one of Bob's excellent wiring diagrams and ended
up with an 60 amp alternator (with abnormal voltage - too high or too low
warning )with the crowbar circuit tripper for the alternator and a
voltmeter. I started with two 25 AH Concord RCG batteries totaling 44 lbs!.
I could have probably stayed airborn on just the starter motor {:>)
After flying for 4 years with this combination and only using the secondary
battery to help crank on cold mornings, I now fly my "all-electric" with one
680 Odyssey battery (which I swap out every 2 years regardless of its
condition). I have shed 30 lbs of battery weight and I believe that on the
east coast that the 30-45 minutes the 17 AH Odyssey will give me at minimum
current drain configuration should enable me to easily find a suitable
airport. My minimum current drain configuration is all but engine
electronics off, GPS on battery, radio on. I pull a CB so only one set of
spark plugs are firing (the rotary has two per chamber), only one pair of
fuel injectors are firing (plenty to keep me airborn) and only one fuel pump
is running.
I have learned the hard way that weight is the performance killer and have
spent years slowly getting my aircraft's weight reduced toward a norm for my
bird. I would strongly suggest following Bob's suggestion of moving one of
your two batteries toward the rear for the W&B and forgetting the third
battery.
FWIW
Ed
Ed Anderson
Rv-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson(at)carolina.rr.com
http://members.cox.net/rogersda/rotary/configs.htm#N494BW
http://www.dmack.net/mazda/index.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:10 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Back-Up Battery
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>>
>>> Now that there's a bit more time to consider the questions,
>>> let's do a quick review of the techniques and rationale for
>>> installing "backup" batteries:
>>>
>>> When you use the phrase "backup" there is an implied
>>> notion that what ever power supply is normally expected
>>> to carry some load aboard the aircraft suffers a low order
>>> of confidence that it will always be there to do its job.
>>>
>>> The classic idea of a "backup" power source has been
>>> with us since day-one. The engine drive generator or
>>> alternator is primary, the battery is a secondary energy
>>> source.
>>>
>>> With the popularity of all-electric panels on the
>>> rise,
>>
>>I must say that my airplane will be double-electrically-dependant. I have
>>a Subaru electrically-dependant engine and an all-electric panel (well,
>>I'll still have 2 "steam-gauges": Altimeter and Airspeed Indicator). Since
>>I have no possibility of installing a second alternator or generator, and
>>the engine factory installation calls for 2 (equal) batteries, no wonder I
>>am thinking about a 3rd (small battery), also fuelled by the possibility
>>of having to put some wheight in the butt.
>>
>>Opposite to your opinion, I think that, if I have to put some "dead" lead
>>down there, why not put some "live" lead (aka battery), which will do both
>>jobs? I believe it's a very good return on investment, like you love to
>>say.
>
> If you already have two batteries, how about moving one of them aft
> to satisfy W&B requirements without having to add all the overhead
> for installing and maintaining a third battery?
>
> Only you can make the judgement as to whether the proposed, third,
> itty-bitty battery offers a good return. But after years of
> rubbing elbows with folks in the business, I know what reactions
> we'd get if we add one more line item to the maintenance list
> for continued air-worthiness . . . especially in view of the
> relatively small benefits offered by a 4.5 a.h. device.
>
> This is why I wanted to discuss it in more detail. I like it
> if everyone monitoring the List understands all the ramifications
> for such an installation and understand further that I would
> recommend avoiding such an installation until all the alternatives
> and cost of ownership issues have been evaluated. I.e., is there
> a simpler way to get the job done?
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Latest figure Z16 ? |
Hi Bob,
Hope you won't mind my posting again on the subject :
"In the latest revision J of appendix Z, the Rotax figure Z16 Revision L
(6-22-06) displays a new OV connection principle.
In my opinion this newer version is an improvement, as the Rotax-Ducati
regulator goes wild when the sense "C" wire is disconnected.
Here are my questions :
- Is there any chance to see this latest version appear in the .dwg
drawings ? (I would like to use this newer version for some buddies'
wiring diagram)
- Is there any risk of over voltage if the pilot happens to open or
close the master switch in flight ?
Thanks in advance,
Best wishes for the New Year,"
Regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bob noffs" <icubob(at)newnorth.net> |
hi all, i understand the advantages of a 63/37 blend of solder . is
60/40 ''almost as good'' or is there some reason that makes is a much
poorer choice? it is easily available while 63/37 is quite a bit less
frequent on the store shelves.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Avionics cooler |
> (Fait-il beaucoup de froid Grenoble?)
>
> My system is based on the ExpBus, which in case you don't know, is a
> premanufactured electric buss system (which, by the way, 'letric Bob
> doesn't recommend).
> But since my system has a Main Battery buss and an Aux Battery buss, I
> will connect it to the Main, therefore it will also be OFF in case of
> an electric emergency.
Hi Carlos,
Winter is not really there in Grenoble, and most ski resorts are still
closed due to the lack of snow. Are you located in Portugal ?
I've heard about the ExpBus. The Aux Battery bus may play the same role
as an E-bus.
Best regards,
Gilles
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>hi all, i understand the advantages of a 63/37 blend of solder . is 60/40
>''almost as good'' or is there some reason that makes is a much poorer
>choice? it is easily available while 63/37 is quite a bit less frequent on
>the store shelves.
60/40 is an adequate substitute for 63/37 and as you've
noted, is much easier to find. It will be just fine
for your purposes.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics cooler |
>
>
>Tom S., James H., Charlie E., Bob N.
>
>Thanks for your input. I will try to measure the panel back temperature
>with all the avionics paraphernalia already working (which will only
>happen, very conveniently, in the next summer) and I'll decide accordingly.
As a gemeral rule of thumb, you can do your temperature tests
at any convenient time and extrapolate for worst case. For example,
if your tests at 25C ambient produces a temperature of 45C at some
point of interest, the same point measured at 35C ambient would
also be 10 degrees higher or 55C.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Slaughter" <willslau(at)alumni.rice.edu> |
Yes, it's almost as good, but it does have a small temperature range
where
it has a plastic state. If you wiggle even slightly as it cools through
this
range, you'll have a substandard joint. If everthing is up on the bench
and
solidly held, it wouldn't be a problem. Obviously lots of things get
successfully soldered with the 60/40, but I just ordered a one pound
spool
of 63/37 from Digikey when I couldn't find any locally. Unless I
drastically
increase my soldering, it'll last me the rest of my life and then some,
and
it maximizes my chances of each joint being as it should be.
William Slaughter
RV-8 QB
Almost finished enough sheetmetal to be able to run a wire for a change!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bob
noffs
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:39 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: solder
hi all, i understand the advantages of a 63/37 blend of solder . is
60/40
''almost as good'' or is there some reason that makes is a much poorer
choice? it is easily available while 63/37 is quite a bit less frequent
on
the store shelves.
bob noffs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | smaller crimp-on spade terminals? |
I was inspecting my Infinity Aerospace trim & flap relay board last
night, pondering how and where I was going to mount it in the plane,
and noticed that one row of contacts, for the wire bundle from the
joystick, was smaller than a standard terminal block, with narrower
spacing - I'm guessing .187 versus .250 - so, is there a crimp-on
spade lug for terminating wires on a terminal block this size, or
should I just slip the wires in and tighten down? Vendor suggestion?
TIA,
Bill B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: smaller crimp-on spade terminals? |
Bill,
I had a similar problem with a different device. I used ring terminals for #4
screws. They are available from Allied and probably Mouser and Digikey. Hope
this helps. Don
---- Bill Boyd wrote:
>
> I was inspecting my Infinity Aerospace trim & flap relay board last
> night, pondering how and where I was going to mount it in the plane,
> and noticed that one row of contacts, for the wire bundle from the
> joystick, was smaller than a standard terminal block, with narrower
> spacing - I'm guessing .187 versus .250 - so, is there a crimp-on
> spade lug for terminating wires on a terminal block this size, or
> should I just slip the wires in and tighten down? Vendor suggestion?
>
> TIA,
>
> Bill B.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
Can anyone give me a part # and mfgr. for a 22000MFD 25v 105c
filter cap? or what ever is better. ( Must have screw terminals.)
Thanks Bill S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Screw terminals are generally a pain. But... 338-1252-ND from digikey
gets everything you want except the temperature spec - 95C instead of
105C. If you aren't installing it in a certified harsh environment 95C
might be fine.
Matt-
> Can anyone give me a part # and mfgr. for a 22000MFD 25v 105c filter
> cap? or what ever is better. ( Must have screw terminals.)
> Thanks Bill S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Broken and Garbled" (Additional data) |
>One comment on these radios, take the advertised range and cut it in half
>at best.
Yeah, the itty-bitty hand-helds are victims of way too
much marketing hype. I've used them vehicle to vehicle
solid out to 1/2 mile and open line-of-sight to about a
mile. One pair I had was good to a couple hundred yards
vehicle to vehicle.
However, for the tasks to which I've applied these radios
a range of a few feet has been sufficient.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: smaller crimp-on spade terminals? |
>
>I was inspecting my Infinity Aerospace trim & flap relay board last
>night, pondering how and where I was going to mount it in the plane,
>and noticed that one row of contacts, for the wire bundle from the
>joystick, was smaller than a standard terminal block, with narrower
>spacing - I'm guessing .187 versus .250 - so, is there a crimp-on
>spade lug for terminating wires on a terminal block this size, or
>should I just slip the wires in and tighten down? Vendor suggestion?
See http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T071/0295.pdf
http://dkc3.digikey.com/PDF/T071/0296.pdf
for a complete range of PIDG terminals. Get out
your callipers and see what size will really fit
your terminal block.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Screw terminals are generally a pain. But... 338-1252-ND from digikey
>gets everything you want except the temperature spec - 95C instead of
>105C. If you aren't installing it in a certified harsh environment 95C
>might be fine.
I agree. This part number will be fine. However, avoid
any ideas about substituting a wired device of the same
ratings over the screw-terminal devices. Their internal
construction is not as well suited for high-ripple current
filtering that we're looking for in this application.
It's that "computer grade" thing that makes the difference
and all these puppies come with 10-32 screw terminals.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Burnaby" <jonlaury(at)impulse.net> |
| Subject: | Slow turning Vacumn Pump drive. |
I have an all electric setup and a free vacumn pad on which I'd like to
put a direct-drive alternator, ala SD 20.
Problem is the Franklin drive turns at 80% of engine speed. Is there a
reasonable size D-D alt that will put out 20 A @ 1900 rpm?
Searched the archives and found the GAMI Supplenator, but GAMI only
sells the package system, with lots of bells and whistles, for $4K.
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sally Kilishek <s_kilishek(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What Are The Odds - Problem Solved (I think) |
Bob:
As usual, your intuition (in this case about faulty
ground connections) is right on target.
I replaced the alternator ground wire, which had run
to a nearby engine bolt, with a piece of #18 wire
going directly to the regulator case.
All aberrant behavior stopped at once. Bus voltage is
now mostly 14.6 to 14.8 volts, with infrequent
excursions to 14.4 or 15.0 volts.
Dont know why this worked, since the original ground
connection tested fine on the multimeter (showed zero
ohms to airframe ground), but who am I to question
success?
Ill put some additional flight test time on the
system when the weather improves, but Im feeling
pretty confident that the problem is solved. I know
that a 14.8V bus voltage will put more stress on the
battery than 13.8 volts would, but I think we can
probably live with that. I dont think that this will
hurt the avionics.
In answer to your questions:
My ground system is as follows. The voltage regulator
is bolted to the stainless steel firewall. The
landing light and strobes are grounded to the wing
structure. The PTT switches are grounded to
convenient points near the control sticks. Everything
else is grounded at a single accessible point behind
the instrument panel.
With the exception of the 60A alternator B lead
breaker (which is a push to reset thermal breaker) all
circuit breakers are Polyswitch PTC current limiters
with indicator lights for each circuit.
I know that I speak for many others when I express my
sincere gratitude to you for monitoring this list and
for steering dummies like me away from despair. God
bless you.
George Kilishek
---------------------------------------
/snip/
>The fact that the voltage the regulator sees is a few
>tenths of a volt lower than the actual bus
voltage
>probably indicates a problem with the wiring
between
>the regulator and the alternator breaker. This
is
>about 6 feet of #18 wire from the regulator to
the
>alternator switch and about 2 feet of #18 wire
from
>the switch to the breaker (Faston connectors
>throughout).
>
>Do you have any suggestions?
Keep in mind that "wiring" includes ALL
conductor
pathways including ground. These simple
regulators
use case ground as the negative side sense
lead
for voltage regulation. /snip/
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill and Marsha" <docyukon(at)ptcnet.net> |
Matt Thanks for the quick reply. What do you mean by, generally a
pain? What problems can I expect to incounter with screw terminals? Bill
S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: filter cap
>
>
> Screw terminals are generally a pain. But... 338-1252-ND from digikey
> gets everything you want except the temperature spec - 95C instead of
> 105C. If you aren't installing it in a certified harsh environment 95C
> might be fine.
>
>
> Matt-
>
>> Can anyone give me a part # and mfgr. for a 22000MFD 25v 105c filter
>> cap? or what ever is better. ( Must have screw terminals.)
>> Thanks Bill S.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
> What do you mean by, generally a pain? What problems can I expect
> to incounter with screw terminals?
Bill, Matt and all,
FWIW, I installed such a screw terminal capacitor in our airplane three
years ago, and we have been flying for two years now, without any problem.
Regards,
Gilles Thesee
Grenoble, France
http://contrails.free.fr
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Ahhh.. I just gripe because screw terminals seem unnecessairly fiddly.
Electrical components are often mounted in places where access/vision is
limited. Threading small screws through lugs crimped to springy wire can
be a test of dexterity and patience. No big deal, but I like to have
things built for quick serviceability.
As a possible alternative, I remember seeing threaded lug to spade
adapters on the tops of the older Bosch (at least) automotive ignition
coils. A threaded stud sticks out of the top of the coil. Captured by a
nut threaded onto the stud is a piece of tinned metal. The end of that
piece of metal is properly sized/formed to accept female spade terminals.
I did a quick online search and couldn't find what I was looking for...
Maybe somebody knows what these things are actually called..
What I am talking about is depicted here:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/27/200px-Igncoil.jpg
or here:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://specialtauto.com/delorean-parts/images/ignition-coil-blaster_small.jpg&imgrefurl=http://specialtauto.com/delorean-parts/engine-tuneup.html&h=155&w=150&sz=3&hl=en&sig2=JP9z4J26Tyw9NHdBBJn8jw&start=64&tbnid=M4N61qRrCiDkHM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=94&ei=_0WcRYWOL8zI6gH2pM3dDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dignition%2Bcoil%26start%3D60%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN
or here:
http://content.performanceproducts.com/main/101089/boschigcoil.jpg
It should be pretty easy to make such a thing.
Regards,
Matt-
>
>
> Matt Thanks for the quick reply. What do you mean by, generally a
> pain? What problems can I expect to incounter with screw terminals?
> Bill
> S.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:57 AM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: filter cap
>
>
>>
>>
>> Screw terminals are generally a pain. But... 338-1252-ND from digikey
>> gets everything you want except the temperature spec - 95C instead of
>> 105C. If you aren't installing it in a certified harsh environment 95C
>> might be fine.
>>
>>
>> Matt-
>>
>>> Can anyone give me a part # and mfgr. for a 22000MFD 25v 105c
>>> filter
>>> cap? or what ever is better. ( Must have screw terminals.)
>>> Thanks Bill S.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
Hello,
I'm new to the list, and just getting started on the wings of an RV-10,
having finished the tail kit last month. I've read Bob's book, but as
I'm starting to design my electrical system I have (at least for now) a
question.
The schematic in "the book" shows the main battery pos wire connected to
the battery contactor and then from there to the starter contactor. I
just viewed the HomebuiltHelper Video on wiring a homebuilt and they
showed the battery connected directly to the "starter solenoid" which I
think is meant to be called the starter contactor (at least it looks
like one).
So my newbie questions are:
1. Are both of these approaches correct?
2. Is the "starter contactor" any different than the "batter contactor?"
3. Am I correct in that the device in the video is not called a
"solenoid?" From reading Bob's book, I'm guessing this is the "close
but no cigar" example.
Thanks and please be gentle.
Jeff Dalton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
Steinair has faston adapters for use on terminal strips that could be cut in half
and used. Don
---- Matt Prather wrote:
>
> Ahhh.. I just gripe because screw terminals seem unnecessairly fiddly.
> Electrical components are often mounted in places where access/vision is
> limited. Threading small screws through lugs crimped to springy wire can
> be a test of dexterity and patience. No big deal, but I like to have
> things built for quick serviceability.
>
> As a possible alternative, I remember seeing threaded lug to spade
> adapters on the tops of the older Bosch (at least) automotive ignition
> coils. A threaded stud sticks out of the top of the coil. Captured by a
> nut threaded onto the stud is a piece of tinned metal. The end of that
> piece of metal is properly sized/formed to accept female spade terminals.
> I did a quick online search and couldn't find what I was looking for...
> Maybe somebody knows what these things are actually called..
>
> What I am talking about is depicted here:
>
> http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/2/27/200px-Igncoil.jpg
>
> or here:
>
> http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://specialtauto.com/delorean-parts/images/ignition-coil-blaster_small.jpg&imgrefurl=http://specialtauto.com/delorean-parts/engine-tuneup.html&h=155&w=150&sz=3&hl=en&sig2=JP9z4J26Tyw9NHdBBJn8jw&start=64&tbnid=M4N61qRrCiDkHM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=94&ei=_0WcRYWOL8zI6gH2pM3dDA&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dignition%2Bcoil%26start%3D60%26ndsp%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN
>
> or here:
>
> http://content.performanceproducts.com/main/101089/boschigcoil.jpg
>
> It should be pretty easy to make such a thing.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt-
>
>
> >
> >
> > Matt Thanks for the quick reply. What do you mean by, generally a
> > pain? What problems can I expect to incounter with screw terminals?
> > Bill
> > S.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:57 AM
> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: filter cap
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Screw terminals are generally a pain. But... 338-1252-ND from digikey
> >> gets everything you want except the temperature spec - 95C instead of
> >> 105C. If you aren't installing it in a certified harsh environment 95C
> >> might be fine.
> >>
> >>
> >> Matt-
> >>
> >>> Can anyone give me a part # and mfgr. for a 22000MFD 25v 105c
> >>> filter
> >>> cap? or what ever is better. ( Must have screw terminals.)
> >>> Thanks Bill S.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Whooo.. This is a recurring topic of questions on the list.. Much
discussion in the archives.
Answers:
1. It depends on your design goals. Probably both designs aren't correct
however. Aircraft electrical systems need a high current battery switch -
either an electrically operated relay, or a big mechanical switch. A
primary reason is so that the whole system can be de-energized by
isolating the battery from the rest of the airplane. The high current
switch needs to be mounted as close as practicably possible to the
battery. The longer the run from the battery to the battery contactor,
the more care in protecting the wire that forms this connection.
2. Starter contactors are typically momentary switches, and can take
quite a bit of power to actuate 10Watts+. This extra current helps make
the switching action more robust - good for controlling currents in the
hundreds of amps. Battery contactors are continuous duty devices. They
consume less power, and won't switch a 200A+ load as robustly as the
starter contactor.
3. Your assessment seems correct.
Regards,
Matt-
> Hello,
>
> I'm new to the list, and just getting started on the wings of an RV-10,
> having finished the tail kit last month. I've read Bob's book, but as I'm
> starting to design my electrical system I have (at least for now) a
> question.
>
> The schematic in "the book" shows the main battery pos wire connected to
> the battery contactor and then from there to the starter contactor. I
> just viewed the HomebuiltHelper Video on wiring a homebuilt and they
> showed the battery connected directly to the "starter solenoid" which I
> think is meant to be called the starter contactor (at least it looks like
> one).
>
> So my newbie questions are:
>
> 1. Are both of these approaches correct?
> 2. Is the "starter contactor" any different than the "batter contactor?"
> 3. Am I correct in that the device in the video is not called a
> "solenoid?" From reading Bob's book, I'm guessing this is the "close but
> no cigar" example.
>
> Thanks and please be gentle.
>
> Jeff Dalton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
1/3/2007
Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you.
You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built plane
cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional VOR
and ILS (when needed) receivers on board.
They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you think
experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft
(Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs
and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board
when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not?"
I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental
Aircraft)) must
also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board."
Here is why I do not agree with that statement:
A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAAs TSO C146a Gamma-3
certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with Vertical
(LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS)."
B) "Garmins GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAAs highest level of
certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids
for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance similar to Instrument
Landing System (ILS) operations without the need for ground-based navaids
of any kind."
C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the
GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAAs WAAS regulations may be used
for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route
through precision approach at airports."
These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see copy
below.
D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin says
in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description of
the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and a WMS
(WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground.
Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF
navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations
which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating
IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in
compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."
I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly don't
intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. Obviously when
flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer and glideslope
equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published approach that
requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on board and
functioning.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS --------------
November 9, 2006
Garmin Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W series
OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire Garmin International, a unit
of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of a major
aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Expo
in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAAs TSO C146a
Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with
Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved model
list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed on over
980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins the
G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft. Garmin
currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider.
"This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary
Kelley, Garmins vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA commissioned
WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified equipment
in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 Garmin GNS
400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to WAAS. We
expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, and pilots
will be able to operate to and from airports that would otherwise be
unavailable to them in marginal weather."
Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmins popular
GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade their
products to meet the FAAs WAAS standards* without a field approval**. These
upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map redraws, fully coupled
and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, and increased XM weather
content. Pilots will also experience significantly enhanced functionality
because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, and LNAV approach capabilities.
Garmins GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAAs highest level of certification
for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for precise
lateral and vertical approach guidance similar to Instrument Landing
System (ILS) operations without the need for ground-based navaids of any
kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets pilots fly the FAAs new LPV
approaches. The FAA has already published over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS
approach procedures.
The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the GPS
signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAAs WAAS regulations may be used for
sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route
through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, pilots
will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be able to
navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument flight
rules.
Garmins panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly three-fourths of
all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted
since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the avionics
industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmins GNS 480 was the
first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a Gamma-3
certification.
Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430W and GNS 530W to begin in
about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are
available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not
currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of
upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS 530W
units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for
additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers.
*Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, Garmins
GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary means" of
GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. Garmin
expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 issuing the
software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader card.
This required software update is expected to be available in the first
quarter of 2007.
**The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for a
large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not
pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness
approval will be required.
------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: 91.205
> OC:
>
> Happy New Year to you!
>
> Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more than
> once
> that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must
> also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board.
> They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
> appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used."
>
> Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard
> certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs
> and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board
> when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not?
>
> I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the only
> answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav
> capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type
> certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of
> certifying
> the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So the
> FAA
> makes us use their nav system.
>
> How close am I?
>
> ===================
> L. Wayne Hicks
> Senior Engineer
> Zel Technologies, LLC
> 757-325-1282 phone
> wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com
> http://www.zeltech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <dan.beadle(at)inclinesoftworks.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
The key is the 146 TSO. Without that, GPS is just a backup system. VOR or
NDB must be primary. (We all know, that we fly it the other way around).
In some cases, like flying direct, we can't even use VORs (too high, too
low, too far away). But if we are at vectoring altitudes with radar
coverage, again we can use the non-146 GPS as Secondary (even tho VOR is out
of range.)
With 146 TSO, it is a new ballgame - no underlying VOR required.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:56 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
1/3/2007
Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you.
You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built plane
cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional VOR
and ILS (when needed) receivers on board.
They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you think
experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft
(Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs and nothing else? Why
must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board when the new avionics
suites in the newer planes do not?"
I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental
Aircraft)) must
also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board."
Here is why I do not agree with that statement:
A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAA's TSO C146a Gamma-3
certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with Vertical
(LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area
Augmentation System (WAAS)."
B) "Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of
certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids
for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument
Landing System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids
of any kind."
C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the
GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used
for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route
through precision approach at airports."
These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see copy
below.
D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin says
in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description of
the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and a WMS
(WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground.
Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF
navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations
which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating
IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in
compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."
I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly don't
intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. Obviously when
flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer and glideslope
equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published approach that
requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on board and
functioning.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS --------------
November 9, 2006 GarminR Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W
series OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire - Garmin International, a
unit of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of a
major aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
(AOPA) Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the
FAA's TSO C146a
Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with
Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide
Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved model
list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed on over
980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins the
G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft. Garmin
currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider.
"This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary
Kelley, Garmin's vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA commissioned
WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified equipment
in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 Garmin GNS
400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to WAAS. We
expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, and pilots
will be able to operate to and from airports that would otherwise be
unavailable to them in marginal weather."
Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmin's popular
GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade their
products to meet the FAA's WAAS standards* without a field approval**. These
upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map redraws, fully coupled
and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, and increased XM weather
content. Pilots will also experience significantly enhanced functionality
because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, and LNAV approach capabilities.
Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of certification
for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for precise
lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument Landing
System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids of any
kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets pilots fly the FAA's new LPV
approaches. The FAA has already published over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS
approach procedures.
The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the GPS
signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used for
sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route
through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, pilots
will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be able to
navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument flight
rules.
Garmin's panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly three-fourths of
all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted
since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the avionics
industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmin's GNS 480T was the
first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a Gamma-3
certification.
Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430WT and GNS 530WT to begin in
about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are
available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not
currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of
upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS 530W
units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for
additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers.
*Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, Garmin's
GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary means" of
GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. Garmin
expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 issuing the
software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader card.
This required software update is expected to be available in the first
quarter of 2007.
**The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for a
large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not
pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness
approval will be required.
------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: 91.205
> OC:
>
> Happy New Year to you!
>
> Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more than
> once
> that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must
> also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board.
> They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
> appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used."
>
> Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard
> certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs
> and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board
> when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not?
>
> I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the only
> answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav
> capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type
> certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of
> certifying
> the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So the
> FAA
> makes us use their nav system.
>
> How close am I?
>
> ===================
> L. Wayne Hicks
> Senior Engineer
> Zel Technologies, LLC
> 757-325-1282 phone
> wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com
> http://www.zeltech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for
the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so
far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types
of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to
mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified
GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other
two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked
into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you
explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements
in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say
this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a
homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.
Thanks, gentlemen.
Bill B.
On 1/4/07, Dan Beadle wrote:
>
> The key is the 146 TSO. Without that, GPS is just a backup system. VOR or
> NDB must be primary. (We all know, that we fly it the other way around).
> In some cases, like flying direct, we can't even use VORs (too high, too
> low, too far away). But if we are at vectoring altitudes with radar
> coverage, again we can use the non-146 GPS as Secondary (even tho VOR is out
> of range.)
>
> With 146 TSO, it is a new ballgame - no underlying VOR required.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> bakerocb(at)cox.net
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:56 PM
> To: Hicks, Wayne
> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>
>
> 1/3/2007
>
> Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you.
>
> You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built plane
> cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional VOR
> and ILS (when needed) receivers on board.
> They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
> appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you think
> experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft
> (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs and nothing else? Why
> must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board when the new avionics
> suites in the newer planes do not?"
>
> I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental
> Aircraft)) must
> also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board."
>
> Here is why I do not agree with that statement:
>
> A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAA's TSO C146a Gamma-3
> certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with Vertical
> (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area
> Augmentation System (WAAS)."
>
> B) "Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of
> certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids
> for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument
> Landing System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids
> of any kind."
>
> C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the
> GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used
> for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route
> through precision approach at airports."
>
> These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see copy
> below.
>
> D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin says
> in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description of
> the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and a WMS
> (WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground.
>
> Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF
> navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations
> which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating
> IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in
> compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment
> appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."
>
> I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly don't
> intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. Obviously when
> flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer and glideslope
> equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published approach that
> requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on board and
> functioning.
>
> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
>
>
> ------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS --------------
> November 9, 2006 GarminR Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W
> series OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire - Garmin International, a
> unit of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of a
> major aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
> (AOPA) Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the
> FAA's TSO C146a
> Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with
> Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide
> Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved model
> list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed on over
> 980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins the
> G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft. Garmin
> currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider.
> "This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary
> Kelley, Garmin's vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA commissioned
> WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified equipment
> in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 Garmin GNS
> 400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to WAAS. We
> expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, and pilots
> will be able to operate to and from airports that would otherwise be
> unavailable to them in marginal weather."
> Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmin's popular
> GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade their
> products to meet the FAA's WAAS standards* without a field approval**. These
> upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map redraws, fully coupled
> and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, and increased XM weather
> content. Pilots will also experience significantly enhanced functionality
> because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, and LNAV approach capabilities.
> Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of certification
> for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for precise
> lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument Landing
> System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids of any
> kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets pilots fly the FAA's new LPV
> approaches. The FAA has already published over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS
> approach procedures.
> The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the GPS
> signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used for
> sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route
> through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, pilots
> will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be able to
> navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument flight
> rules.
> Garmin's panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly three-fourths of
> all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted
> since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the avionics
> industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmin's GNS 480T was the
> first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a Gamma-3
> certification.
> Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430WT and GNS 530WT to begin in
> about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are
> available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not
> currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of
> upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS 530W
> units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for
> additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers.
> *Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, Garmin's
> GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary means" of
> GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. Garmin
> expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 issuing the
> software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader card.
> This required software update is expected to be available in the first
> quarter of 2007.
> **The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for a
> large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not
> pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness
> approval will be required.
>
> ------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM
> Subject: 91.205
>
>
> > OC:
> >
> > Happy New Year to you!
> >
> > Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more than
> > once
> > that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must
> > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board.
> > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
> > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used."
> >
> > Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard
> > certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs
> > and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board
> > when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not?
> >
> > I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the only
> > answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav
> > capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type
> > certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of
> > certifying
> > the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So the
> > FAA
> > makes us use their nav system.
> >
> > How close am I?
> >
> > ===================
> > L. Wayne Hicks
> > Senior Engineer
> > Zel Technologies, LLC
> > 757-325-1282 phone
> > wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com
> > http://www.zeltech.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Corollary question to my own, below: any thoughts on how one
practices partial panel training and checkride performance when all
the flight instruments exist only on a pair of redundant glass EFIS's?
I'm a bit worried the examiner is going to balk at giving me a
checkride in my own expereimental if there is no way for him to
selectively fail just the airspeed or HSI or altimeter or whatever.
Any real-world failure of an AHRS would be detected by automated cross
check between the two AHRS units, and the A/P gyro info would tell me
which AHS was spewing bad data. Such a scenario seems to throw a
monkey wrench into the archaic training and testing standards that
were written in the days of the six-pack of gyro and electric
instruments. Anyone been there and done that with an examiner?
-Bill B.
On 1/4/07, Bill Boyd wrote:
> Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for
> the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so
> far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types
> of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to
> mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified
> GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other
> two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked
> into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you
> explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements
> in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say
> this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a
> homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.
>
> Thanks, gentlemen.
>
> Bill B.
>
> On 1/4/07, Dan Beadle wrote:
> >
> > The key is the 146 TSO. Without that, GPS is just a backup system. VOR or
> > NDB must be primary. (We all know, that we fly it the other way around).
> > In some cases, like flying direct, we can't even use VORs (too high, too
> > low, too far away). But if we are at vectoring altitudes with radar
> > coverage, again we can use the non-146 GPS as Secondary (even tho VOR is out
> > of range.)
> >
> > With 146 TSO, it is a new ballgame - no underlying VOR required.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > bakerocb(at)cox.net
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:56 PM
> > To: Hicks, Wayne
> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
> >
> >
> > 1/3/2007
> >
> > Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you.
> >
> > You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built plane
> > cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional VOR
> > and ILS (when needed) receivers on board.
> > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
> > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you think
> > experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft
> > (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs and nothing else? Why
> > must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board when the new avionics
> > suites in the newer planes do not?"
> >
> > I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental
> > Aircraft)) must
> > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board."
> >
> > Here is why I do not agree with that statement:
> >
> > A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAA's TSO C146a Gamma-3
> > certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with Vertical
> > (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area
> > Augmentation System (WAAS)."
> >
> > B) "Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of
> > certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids
> > for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument
> > Landing System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids
> > of any kind."
> >
> > C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the
> > GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used
> > for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route
> > through precision approach at airports."
> >
> > These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see copy
> > below.
> >
> > D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin says
> > in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description of
> > the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and a WMS
> > (WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground.
> >
> > Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF
> > navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations
> > which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating
> > IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in
> > compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment
> > appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."
> >
> > I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly don't
> > intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. Obviously when
> > flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer and glideslope
> > equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published approach that
> > requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on board and
> > functioning.
> >
> > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS --------------
> > November 9, 2006 GarminR Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W
> > series OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire - Garmin International,
a
> > unit of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of a
> > major aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
> > (AOPA) Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the
> > FAA's TSO C146a
> > Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with
> > Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide
> > Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved model
> > list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed on over
> > 980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins the
> > G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft. Garmin
> > currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider.
> > "This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary
> > Kelley, Garmin's vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA commissioned
> > WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified equipment
> > in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 Garmin GNS
> > 400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to WAAS. We
> > expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, and pilots
> > will be able to operate to and from airports that would otherwise be
> > unavailable to them in marginal weather."
> > Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmin's popular
> > GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade their
> > products to meet the FAA's WAAS standards* without a field approval**. These
> > upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map redraws, fully coupled
> > and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, and increased XM weather
> > content. Pilots will also experience significantly enhanced functionality
> > because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, and LNAV approach capabilities.
> > Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of certification
> > for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for precise
> > lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument Landing
> > System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids of any
> > kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets pilots fly the FAA's new LPV
> > approaches. The FAA has already published over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS
> > approach procedures.
> > The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the GPS
> > signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be used for
> > sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route
> > through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, pilots
> > will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be able to
> > navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument flight
> > rules.
> > Garmin's panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly three-fourths of
> > all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted
> > since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the avionics
> > industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmin's GNS 480T was the
> > first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a Gamma-3
> > certification.
> > Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430WT and GNS 530WT to begin in
> > about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are
> > available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not
> > currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of
> > upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS 530W
> > units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for
> > additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers.
> > *Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, Garmin's
> > GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary means" of
> > GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. Garmin
> > expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 issuing the
> > software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader card.
> > This required software update is expected to be available in the first
> > quarter of 2007.
> > **The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for a
> > large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not
> > pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness
> > approval will be required.
> >
> > ------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM
> > Subject: 91.205
> >
> >
> > > OC:
> > >
> > > Happy New Year to you!
> > >
> > > Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more than
> > > once
> > > that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must
> > > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board.
> > > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
> > > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used."
> > >
> > > Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard
> > > certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs
> > > and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board
> > > when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not?
> > >
> > > I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the only
> > > answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav
> > > capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type
> > > certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of
> > > certifying
> > > the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So the
> > > FAA
> > > makes us use their nav system.
> > >
> > > How close am I?
> > >
> > > ===================
> > > L. Wayne Hicks
> > > Senior Engineer
> > > Zel Technologies, LLC
> > > 757-325-1282 phone
> > > wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com
> > > http://www.zeltech.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | small spade lugs |
Bob: the barrier terminal strip in question has a terminal spacing of
.25" and with the thickness of the plastic dividers between, leaves
.180" width for spade terminals to fit under the screw heads. I saw
none that small in the DigiKey catalog, and found none that narrow in
my junkbox. I have an email in to "JD" at Infinity Aerospace, but no
reply so far. Looks like I may be grinding down my own lugs if I
elect not to just clamp bare wires. Is there a possible problem with
tinning the tips of the wires with solder, to prevent fraying when
shoving them under the hold-down plates, as far as getting a good,
lasting torque-down of the screws? I don't want anyting coming loose
under vibration later on. Something tells me the screws won't "mash
down" as well on solder-dressed stranded wire as they might on the
free strands.
Thanks,
-Bill B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
01/04/2007
Hello Wayne, Thanks for your quick response.
I wrote: " Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no
VHF navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating
Limitations which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d)
when operating IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that
aircraft would be in compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires
"navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."
And you wrote: "I wish we could somehow train the DAR and ABEA communities
to accept this."
I don't agree with the concept of required acceptance by a DAR or FAA
inspector during an initial airworthiness inspection of an ABEA's (Amateur
Built Experimental Aircraft's) avionics suite configuration and eventual use
of that ABEA in IFR flight .
The inspector is not in a position to pass judgement on such future IFR
employment of the aircraft or enforce equipment provisions for that future
employment. Instead the inspector places such judgement and future
responsibility for compliance with FAR's and the AIM equipment requirements
on the builder / pilot by the wording of that ABEA's Operating Limitations.
To whit: After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this
aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.
I suppose it is possible that an FAA ramp inspector after an IFR flight, or
an investigation after an incident, could conclude that an ABEA equipped
with only 146 TSO'd compliant WAAS equipment was in violation of minimum IFR
navigation equipment requirements, but that is not my interpretation of the
words available to me.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:05 AM
Subject: RE: 91.205 (WAAS)
>I wish we could somehow train the DAR and ABEA communities to accept this.
>
> ===================
> L. Wayne Hicks
> Senior Engineer
> Zel Technologies, LLC
> 757-325-1282 phone
> wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com
> http://www.zeltech.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Bill,
When I took my IFR checkride, my plane (C172) was not equipped with an ADF,
thus, no NDB approach. I ended up shooting an ILS and LOC at Knoxville, TN
and a GPS approach at Andrews-Murphy, NC.
As far as partial panel with glass EFIS, most examiners will use good-ol
"sticky notes" to cover up relevant areas of the display. I have the number
of my examiner who would be glad to discuss any questions with you via
phone. Let me know if you want his number.
Bret
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>
> Corollary question to my own, below: any thoughts on how one
> practices partial panel training and checkride performance when all
> the flight instruments exist only on a pair of redundant glass EFIS's?
> I'm a bit worried the examiner is going to balk at giving me a
> checkride in my own expereimental if there is no way for him to
> selectively fail just the airspeed or HSI or altimeter or whatever.
> Any real-world failure of an AHRS would be detected by automated cross
> check between the two AHRS units, and the A/P gyro info would tell me
> which AHS was spewing bad data. Such a scenario seems to throw a
> monkey wrench into the archaic training and testing standards that
> were written in the days of the six-pack of gyro and electric
> instruments. Anyone been there and done that with an examiner?
>
> -Bill B.
>
> On 1/4/07, Bill Boyd wrote:
>> Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for
>> the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so
>> far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types
>> of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to
>> mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified
>> GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other
>> two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked
>> into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you
>> explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements
>> in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say
>> this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a
>> homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.
>>
>> Thanks, gentlemen.
>>
>> Bill B.
>>
>> On 1/4/07, Dan Beadle wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > The key is the 146 TSO. Without that, GPS is just a backup system. VOR
>> > or
>> > NDB must be primary. (We all know, that we fly it the other way
>> > around).
>> > In some cases, like flying direct, we can't even use VORs (too high,
>> > too
>> > low, too far away). But if we are at vectoring altitudes with radar
>> > coverage, again we can use the non-146 GPS as Secondary (even tho VOR
>> > is out
>> > of range.)
>> >
>> > With 146 TSO, it is a new ballgame - no underlying VOR required.
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
>> > [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
>> > bakerocb(at)cox.net
>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 8:56 PM
>> > To: Hicks, Wayne
>> > Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>> >
>> >
>> > 1/3/2007
>> >
>> > Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you.
>> >
>> > You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built
>> > plane
>> > cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional
>> > VOR
>> > and ILS (when needed) receivers on board.
>> > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
>> > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you
>> > think
>> > experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft
>> > (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs and nothing else?
>> > Why
>> > must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board when the new avionics
>> > suites in the newer planes do not?"
>> >
>> > I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built
>> > Experimental
>> > Aircraft)) must
>> > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on
>> > board."
>> >
>> > Here is why I do not agree with that statement:
>> >
>> > A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAA's TSO C146a Gamma-3
>> > certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with
>> > Vertical
>> > (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area
>> > Augmentation System (WAAS)."
>> >
>> > B) "Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of
>> > certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based
>> > navaids
>> > for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to
>> > Instrument
>> > Landing System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based
>> > navaids
>> > of any kind."
>> >
>> > C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of
>> > the
>> > GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be
>> > used
>> > for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en
>> > route
>> > through precision approach at airports."
>> >
>> > These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see
>> > copy
>> > below.
>> >
>> > D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin
>> > says
>> > in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description
>> > of
>> > the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and
>> > a WMS
>> > (WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground.
>> >
>> > Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF
>> > navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating
>> > Limitations
>> > which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when
>> > operating
>> > IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would
>> > be in
>> > compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment
>> > appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."
>> >
>> > I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly
>> > don't
>> > intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. Obviously
>> > when
>> > flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer and
>> > glideslope
>> > equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published approach that
>> > requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on board and
>> > functioning.
>> >
>> > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS --------------
>> > November 9, 2006 GarminR Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W
>> > series OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire - Garmin
>> > International, a
>> > unit of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of
>> > a
>> > major aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
>> > (AOPA) Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the
>> > FAA's TSO C146a
>> > Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision
>> > with
>> > Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the
>> > Wide
>> > Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved
>> > model
>> > list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed on
>> > over
>> > 980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins
>> > the
>> > G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft.
>> > Garmin
>> > currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider.
>> > "This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary
>> > Kelley, Garmin's vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA
>> > commissioned
>> > WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified
>> > equipment
>> > in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 Garmin
>> > GNS
>> > 400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to WAAS. We
>> > expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, and
>> > pilots
>> > will be able to operate to and from airports that would otherwise be
>> > unavailable to them in marginal weather."
>> > Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmin's
>> > popular
>> > GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade their
>> > products to meet the FAA's WAAS standards* without a field approval**.
>> > These
>> > upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map redraws, fully
>> > coupled
>> > and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, and increased XM
>> > weather
>> > content. Pilots will also experience significantly enhanced
>> > functionality
>> > because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, and LNAV approach
>> > capabilities.
>> > Garmin's GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAA's highest level of
>> > certification
>> > for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for
>> > precise
>> > lateral and vertical approach guidance - similar to Instrument Landing
>> > System (ILS) operations - without the need for ground-based navaids of
>> > any
>> > kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets pilots fly the FAA's new
>> > LPV
>> > approaches. The FAA has already published over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS
>> > approach procedures.
>> > The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the
>> > GPS
>> > signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAA's WAAS regulations may be
>> > used for
>> > sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route
>> > through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches,
>> > pilots
>> > will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be able
>> > to
>> > navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument
>> > flight
>> > rules.
>> > Garmin's panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly
>> > three-fourths of
>> > all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted
>> > since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the
>> > avionics
>> > industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmin's GNS 480T was
>> > the
>> > first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a Gamma-3
>> > certification.
>> > Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430WT and GNS 530WT to begin
>> > in
>> > about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are
>> > available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not
>> > currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of
>> > upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS
>> > 530W
>> > units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for
>> > additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers.
>> > *Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation,
>> > Garmin's
>> > GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary
>> > means" of
>> > GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version.
>> > Garmin
>> > expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007
>> > issuing the
>> > software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader
>> > card.
>> > This required software update is expected to be available in the first
>> > quarter of 2007.
>> > **The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data
>> > for a
>> > large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not
>> > pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of
>> > airworthiness
>> > approval will be required.
>> >
>> > ------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
>> > To:
>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM
>> > Subject: 91.205
>> >
>> >
>> > > OC:
>> > >
>> > > Happy New Year to you!
>> > >
>> > > Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more
>> > > than
>> > > once
>> > > that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It
>> > > must
>> > > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on
>> > > board.
>> > > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board
>> > > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used."
>> > >
>> > > Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard
>> > > certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS
>> > > GPSs
>> > > and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on
>> > > board
>> > > when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not?
>> > >
>> > > I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the
>> > > only
>> > > answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav
>> > > capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type
>> > > certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of
>> > > certifying
>> > > the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So
>> > > the
>> > > FAA
>> > > makes us use their nav system.
>> > >
>> > > How close am I?
>> > >
>> > > ===================
>> > > L. Wayne Hicks
>> > > Senior Engineer
>> > > Zel Technologies, LLC
>> > > 757-325-1282 phone
>> > > wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com
>> > > http://www.zeltech.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stucklen, Frederic W UTPWR" <Fred.Stucklen(at)UTCPower.com> |
Bob,
I'm having trouble with the implementation of your Single Switch, two
power source WingWag circuit found at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/PPS/Lighting/WigWag.pdf (page 4) using the
4TL1-10 switch. Specifically, the switch as you show it on your
schematic does not appear to match it's specification (found at
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Switches/tl_series.pdf ). More
specifically, the center switch position doesn't appear to have any
connections between pins 7 - 8 or between 11 - 12, thereby not allowing
for proper WingWag operation. Furthermore, the operation of pins 1,2,&3
are different than shown in your schematic.
It also appears that the only reason a four pole switch was used in
this design was to facilitate the WingWag function on the center
location of the switch. If the design requirements were to have a center
OFF position, a less costly double pole ON-OFF-ON switch could be used.
Any comments?
Fred Stucklen
N925RV RV-6A (Sold after 2008 Hrs)
N926RV RV-6A (700+ hrs)
N924RV RV-7A (Building the fuselage)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: small spade lugs |
>
>Bob: the barrier terminal strip in question has a terminal spacing of
>.25" and with the thickness of the plastic dividers between, leaves
>.180" width for spade terminals to fit under the screw heads. I saw
>none that small in the DigiKey catalog, and found none that narrow in
>my junkbox. I have an email in to "JD" at Infinity Aerospace, but no
>reply so far. Looks like I may be grinding down my own lugs if I
>elect not to just clamp bare wires.
Please DO NOT clamp screws down on bare wires. It is ALWAYS
acceptable to file down the sides of a PIDG style ring terminal
to fit between barriers on a terminal strip.
> Is there a possible problem with
>tinning the tips of the wires with solder, to prevent fraying when
>shoving them under the hold-down plates, as far as getting a good,
>lasting torque-down of the screws? I don't want anyting coming loose
>under vibration later on.
> Something tells me the screws won't "mash
>down" as well on solder-dressed stranded wire as they might on the
>free strands.
It's a toss-up. If that were my only choice, I'd probably
tin the strands first. The major problem with terminal strips
and wires is vibration support just outside the crimped, clamped
(or soldered) connection. This is the "magic" of the PIDG
style terminal . . . whether you crimp -or- solder, there
is a stress concentration in the wire's strands immediately
where they emerge from the electrical connection. The insulation
grip immediately adjacent to this stress point prevents future
failures at that location due to flexing under vibration.
In articles published by two different authors . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
supposedly authoritative individuals hat-dance completely
around these simple-ideas described in . . .
http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
In the 75 or so years since PIDG terminals were developed,
there have been billions of connections made between wires
and terminals that have run failure-free simply because the
designer took time to recognize and accommodate this
little vulnerability in a wire's termination.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>
>Steinair has faston adapters for use on terminal strips that could be cut
>in half and used. Don
Why drive up parts count? What advantage is gained by placing an
adapter on a threaded stud to accommodate a fast-on terminal when
a simple ring terminal to the same stud will suffice? If you have
concerns about maintaining joint integrity in the threaded fastener,
those concerns don't go away just because you've turned a fast-on
terminal into a ring-terminal with an adapter.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
Hello,
I'm new to the list, and just getting started on the wings of an RV-10,
having finished the tail kit last month. I've read Bob's book, but as I'm
starting to design my electrical system I have (at least for now) a question.
The schematic in "the book" shows the main battery pos wire connected to
the battery contactor and then from there to the starter contactor. I just
viewed the HomebuiltHelper Video on wiring a homebuilt and they showed the
battery connected directly to the "starter solenoid" which I think is meant
to be called the starter contactor (at least it looks like one).
So my newbie questions are:
1. Are both of these approaches correct?
Both will "function" . . . but you won't find a type certified
airplane wired as shown in the video. It is the function of the
battery contactor to remove as much power from ship's wiring as
possible when in the OFF condition.
2. Is the "starter contactor" any different than the "batter contactor?"
In the book we talk about the differences between starter contactors
and battery contactors. Starter contactors are intermittent duty devices
that draw a lot of coil current (3-5 amps) to provide large closing
forces on the contacts. Battery contactors continuous duty devices
that draw typically 1 amp or less.
3. Am I correct in that the device in the video is not called a
"solenoid?" From reading Bob's book, I'm guessing this is the "close but
no cigar" example.
All contactors (hi-current relays) have solenoids (short stroke,
linear-motion motors) but not all solenoids have contacts. This is
a good example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about
a part's functionality.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: small spade lugs |
Bob,
Allied sells "ferruls" that while not perfect, allow wire termination with support
of the insulation in places that ring terminals will not fit. One down side
is the need for still another crimper. I am suing an engine monitor that had
no other good way to terminate the wires. I will report later after some flight
time as to weather these "ferrules" work out. Don
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Bob: the barrier terminal strip in question has a terminal spacing of
> >.25" and with the thickness of the plastic dividers between, leaves
> >.180" width for spade terminals to fit under the screw heads. I saw
> >none that small in the DigiKey catalog, and found none that narrow in
> >my junkbox. I have an email in to "JD" at Infinity Aerospace, but no
> >reply so far. Looks like I may be grinding down my own lugs if I
> >elect not to just clamp bare wires.
>
> Please DO NOT clamp screws down on bare wires. It is ALWAYS
> acceptable to file down the sides of a PIDG style ring terminal
> to fit between barriers on a terminal strip.
>
> > Is there a possible problem with
> >tinning the tips of the wires with solder, to prevent fraying when
> >shoving them under the hold-down plates, as far as getting a good,
> >lasting torque-down of the screws? I don't want anyting coming loose
> >under vibration later on.
>
>
>
> > Something tells me the screws won't "mash
> >down" as well on solder-dressed stranded wire as they might on the
> >free strands.
>
> It's a toss-up. If that were my only choice, I'd probably
> tin the strands first. The major problem with terminal strips
> and wires is vibration support just outside the crimped, clamped
> (or soldered) connection. This is the "magic" of the PIDG
> style terminal . . . whether you crimp -or- solder, there
> is a stress concentration in the wire's strands immediately
> where they emerge from the electrical connection. The insulation
> grip immediately adjacent to this stress point prevents future
> failures at that location due to flexing under vibration.
>
> In articles published by two different authors . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
>
> supposedly authoritative individuals hat-dance completely
> around these simple-ideas described in . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
>
> In the 75 or so years since PIDG terminals were developed,
> there have been billions of connections made between wires
> and terminals that have run failure-free simply because the
> designer took time to recognize and accommodate this
> little vulnerability in a wire's termination.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Good Morning OC,
Great comments.
May I use your message as a springboard to further discussion?
Somebody on this thread referred to the C129 approval as "GPS is just a
backup system". That imply's that you must have a VOR based plan in use all
the
time you are navigating via GPS.
I have even read some comments that state you cannot fly a VOR defined
airway unless the VORs are in service.
That is NOT the intent of the approval.
The GPS under 129 is a Supplementary System, not a "back up" system.
You can shoot an NDB or a VOR approach using GPS as long as it has an
approved overlay procedure. The underlying VOR or NDB does not have to be in
service or monitored if it is in service. The same goes for flying an airway
, you
can fly the airway using the GPS even if every VOR along the way is
inoperative. What you must have is a plan to be able to safely revert to a p
lan of
action that will allow you to safely navigate following the loss of the GPS.
The precise way you do that is not specified.
If whatever you do ends up in an incident, you may have to explain your
reasoning at a hearing. Highly unlikely, but always a possibility for any fl
ight
with any equipment!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/4/2007 8:20:21 A.M. Central Standard Time,
bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
Hello Wayne, Thanks for your quick response.
I wrote: " Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no
VHF navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating
Limitations which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d)
when operating IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that
aircraft would be in compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires
"navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."
And you wrote: "I wish we could somehow train the DAR and ABEA communities
to accept this."
I don't agree with the concept of required acceptance by a DAR or FAA
inspector during an initial airworthiness inspection of an ABEA's (Amateur
Built Experimental Aircraft's) avionics suite configuration and eventual us
e
of that ABEA in IFR flight .
The inspector is not in a position to pass judgement on such future IFR
employment of the aircraft or enforce equipment provisions for that future
employment. Instead the inspector places such judgement and future
responsibility for compliance with FAR's and the AIM equipment requirements
on the builder / pilot by the wording of that ABEA's Operating Limitations.
To whit: =9CAfter completion of Phase I flight testing, unless approp
riately
equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this
aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only.=9D
I suppose it is possible that an FAA ramp inspector after an IFR flight, or
an investigation after an incident, could conclude that an ABEA equipped
with only 146 TSO'd compliant WAAS equipment was in violation of minimum IF
R
navigation equipment requirements, but that is not my interpretation of the
words available to me.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com> |
Bob,
This was in response to Matt's comment about not wanting to use screw terminals
becausr of the difficulty in doing maintenance later on in blind spots or difficult
to reach spots. He said that he preferred fast on type hook ups. This
was a way that faston type could be used with existing screw type caps.
---- "Robert L. Nuckolls wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Steinair has faston adapters for use on terminal strips that could be cut
> >in half and used. Don
>
> Why drive up parts count? What advantage is gained by placing an
> adapter on a threaded stud to accommodate a fast-on terminal when
> a simple ring terminal to the same stud will suffice? If you have
> concerns about maintaining joint integrity in the threaded fastener,
> those concerns don't go away just because you've turned a fast-on
> terminal into a ring-terminal with an adapter.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hey Bob,
I think I started this twist... I just don't like ring terminals when
trying to make a connection in the blind. I wasn't concerned about joint
integrity. I agree with your point about parts count..
Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>Steinair has faston adapters for use on terminal strips that could be cut
>>in half and used. Don
>
> Why drive up parts count? What advantage is gained by placing an
> adapter on a threaded stud to accommodate a fast-on terminal when
> a simple ring terminal to the same stud will suffice? If you have
> concerns about maintaining joint integrity in the threaded fastener,
> those concerns don't go away just because you've turned a fast-on
> terminal into a ring-terminal with an adapter.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Piavis <jpiavis(at)microsoft.com> |
Is there any issue with mixing RG400 with other coax in the runs? My harnes
s came with short RG17 "pigtails" for the radio stack. Is there any reason
I can't use RG400 for the remainder of the runs?
Thanks,
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Piavis <jpiavis(at)microsoft.com> |
| Subject: | Transponder Ant. Cable Length |
Antennas are still black magic to me but is there any requirement to have t
he transponder cable run a certain length for optimal signal transmission?
Or is the signal quality all based on antenna length?
Jim
-7 Redmond, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dan Ballin" <dballin(at)gmail.com> |
There were some posts on self exciting alternators and a new z 25
figure to make the SD-8 self exciting. My question is how necessary
is this? I am working on a Legacy dual alt (70 and an SD-20) dual
battery with EI (using z-14 as a starting point). My understanding
of this is that if the battery is totally dead then an alternator will
not "start". I don't think I would start a flight that way, but could
imagine a battery disconnect of some sort in flight. My question is
should I design the system so one or both of the alternators are self
exciting or is this overkill. Any thoughts appreciated.
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Transponder Ant. Cable Length |
| From: | "RV Builder (Michael Sausen)" <rvbuilder(at)sausen.net> |
Yes, keep it as short as possible.
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Piavis
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Transponder Ant. Cable Length
Antennas are still black magic to me but is there any requirement to
have the transponder cable run a certain length for optimal signal
transmission? Or is the signal quality all based on antenna length?
Jim
-7 Redmond, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RG400 vs. RG17 |
I've mixed these and my radios work fine Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: small spade lugs |
It suddenly dawned on me that I can crimp on a .250" FastOn male
connector and grind down the sides to correct width and slot the
center to straddle the little #4 screw, thus making my own mini-spade
lug. All the spades I have in my assortment have such wide slots,
there'd be almost no material left after filing the sides down. I
think this is what I will do. Thanks for the review of options.
-Bill
On 1/4/07, Robert L. Nuckolls, III wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Bob: the barrier terminal strip in question has a terminal spacing of
> >.25" and with the thickness of the plastic dividers between, leaves
> >.180" width for spade terminals to fit under the screw heads. I saw
> >none that small in the DigiKey catalog, and found none that narrow in
> >my junkbox. I have an email in to "JD" at Infinity Aerospace, but no
> >reply so far. Looks like I may be grinding down my own lugs if I
> >elect not to just clamp bare wires.
>
> Please DO NOT clamp screws down on bare wires. It is ALWAYS
> acceptable to file down the sides of a PIDG style ring terminal
> to fit between barriers on a terminal strip.
>
> > Is there a possible problem with
> >tinning the tips of the wires with solder, to prevent fraying when
> >shoving them under the hold-down plates, as far as getting a good,
> >lasting torque-down of the screws? I don't want anyting coming loose
> >under vibration later on.
>
>
> > Something tells me the screws won't "mash
> >down" as well on solder-dressed stranded wire as they might on the
> >free strands.
>
> It's a toss-up. If that were my only choice, I'd probably
> tin the strands first. The major problem with terminal strips
> and wires is vibration support just outside the crimped, clamped
> (or soldered) connection. This is the "magic" of the PIDG
> style terminal . . . whether you crimp -or- solder, there
> is a stress concentration in the wire's strands immediately
> where they emerge from the electrical connection. The insulation
> grip immediately adjacent to this stress point prevents future
> failures at that location due to flexing under vibration.
>
> In articles published by two different authors . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/rules/review.html
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/richter/response_1.pdf
>
> supposedly authoritative individuals hat-dance completely
> around these simple-ideas described in . . .
>
> http://aeroelectric.com/articles/terminal.pdf
>
> In the 75 or so years since PIDG terminals were developed,
> there have been billions of connections made between wires
> and terminals that have run failure-free simply because the
> designer took time to recognize and accommodate this
> little vulnerability in a wire's termination.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transponder Ant. Cable Length |
>Antennas are still black magic to me but is there any requirement to have
>the transponder cable run a certain length for optimal signal
>transmission? Or is the signal quality all based on antenna length?
Coax cable length should be minimized for the
lengths commonly used in light aircraft, both type
of cable and variability in length will have no
observable effect on performance.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RG400 vs. RG17 |
>Is there any issue with mixing RG400 with other coax in the runs? My
>harness came with short RG17 pigtails for the radio stack. Is there any
>reason I can t use RG400 for the remainder of the runs?
No, any good quality 50 ohm cable can be used to extend
your pigtail cables to the antenna.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
Thanks Bob. I just read that in your book.
Jeff
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery AND Starter Contactor?
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm new to the list, and just getting started on the wings of an RV-10,
> having finished the tail kit last month. I've read Bob's book, but as I'm
> starting to design my electrical system I have (at least for now) a
> question.
>
> The schematic in "the book" shows the main battery pos wire connected to
> the battery contactor and then from there to the starter contactor. I
> just viewed the HomebuiltHelper Video on wiring a homebuilt and they
> showed the battery connected directly to the "starter solenoid" which I
> think is meant to be called the starter contactor (at least it looks like
> one).
>
> So my newbie questions are:
>
> 1. Are both of these approaches correct?
>
> Both will "function" . . . but you won't find a type certified
> airplane wired as shown in the video. It is the function of the
> battery contactor to remove as much power from ship's wiring as
> possible when in the OFF condition.
>
> 2. Is the "starter contactor" any different than the "batter contactor?"
>
> In the book we talk about the differences between starter contactors
> and battery contactors. Starter contactors are intermittent duty devices
> that draw a lot of coil current (3-5 amps) to provide large closing
> forces on the contacts. Battery contactors continuous duty devices
> that draw typically 1 amp or less.
>
> 3. Am I correct in that the device in the video is not called a
> "solenoid?" From reading Bob's book, I'm guessing this is the "close but
> no cigar" example.
>
> All contactors (hi-current relays) have solenoids (short stroke,
> linear-motion motors) but not all solenoids have contacts. This is
> a good example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about
> a part's functionality.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Murphy" <tmurphy(at)greenhills.net> |
| Subject: | Forest of Fast-On Tabs |
I'am a new builder using Forest of Fast-On Tabs for firewall engine and
cabin side close to battery. And another Forest of Fast-On Tabs aprox 4
ft near inst panel ( small helicopter ). What size wire to join these
Forest of Tabs grounds ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Vern W." <highflight1(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Self excitation |
Dan,
With a dual alternator AND dual battery system, you're worrying way too much
about a self-starting alternator.
Where you might want to consider a self-starting alternator is if you were
going with just one battery.
If your entire system goes down and you lose both batteries as well, I think
you'd be in a lot more hurt than could be resolved with a self-starting
alternator.
Build your dual/dual system correctly, and change out your batteries for new
ones once in a while, and you'll never have to worry about power. Since I
doubt if you're going to be installing de-icing equipment on that Legacy, my
opinion is that you're taking your system further than is practical anyway.
Vern
On 1/4/07, Dan Ballin wrote:
>
>
> My question is how necessary is this? I am working on a Legacy dual alt
> (70 and an SD-20) dual
> battery with EI (using z-14 as a starting point).
Thanks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | What Are The Odds - Problem Solved (I think) |
01/04/2007
Hello George, You wrote: "The voltage regulator is bolted to the stainless
steel firewall."
A stainless steel firewall can make a very poor grounding connection because
of a film that forms on the surface of the stainless steel.
Sharp points of a meter's probes can pierce this film, but the flat bolted
on base of a voltage regulator may not make a good electrical connection.
There is more in the archives on this subject.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
From: Sally Kilishek <s_kilishek(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: What Are The Odds - Problem Solved (I think)
Bob:
As usual, your intuition (in this case about faulty
ground connections) is right on target.
I replaced the alternator ground wire, which had run
to a nearby engine bolt, with a piece of #18 wire
going directly to the regulator case.
All aberrant behavior stopped at once. Bus voltage is
now mostly 14.6 to 14.8 volts, with infrequent
excursions to 14.4 or 15.0 volts.
Dont know why this worked, since the original ground
connection tested fine on the multimeter (showed zero
ohms to airframe ground), but who am I to question
success?
Ill put some additional flight test time on the
system when the weather improves, but Im feeling
pretty confident that the problem is solved. I know
that a 14.8V bus voltage will put more stress on the
battery than 13.8 volts would, but I think we can
probably live with that. I dont think that this will
hurt the avionics.
In answer to your questions:
My ground system is as follows. The voltage regulator
is bolted to the stainless steel firewall. The
landing light and strobes are grounded to the wing
structure. The PTT switches are grounded to
convenient points near the control sticks. Everything
else is grounded at a single accessible point behind
the instrument panel.
With the exception of the 60A alternator B lead
breaker (which is a push to reset thermal breaker) all
circuit breakers are Polyswitch PTC current limiters
with indicator lights for each circuit.
I know that I speak for many others when I express my
sincere gratitude to you for monitoring this list and
for steering dummies like me away from despair. God
bless you.
George Kilishek
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
Hi Bill-
Two types of non-precision approaches not on your list are VOR and visual.
Visual approaches tend to fall out of peoples thinking since they are, uh,
visual, but the fact remains that you can / will only be issued a visual
approach clearance while operating under IFR. IFR is, of course, a
distinct concept from IMC, which is another detail that tends to get
blurred.
Before the firestorm starts, let me say that I've "been there, done that".
> Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for
> the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so
> far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types
> of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to
> mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified
> GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other
> two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked
> into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you
> explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements
> in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say
> this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a
> homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.
>
> Thanks, gentlemen.
>
> Bill B.
>
glen matejcek
aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
violate the spirit of the thing, somehow ;-)
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, glen matejcek wrote:
>
> Hi Bill-
>
> Two types of non-precision approaches not on your list are VOR and visual.
> Visual approaches tend to fall out of peoples thinking since they are, uh,
> visual, but the fact remains that you can / will only be issued a visual
> approach clearance while operating under IFR. IFR is, of course, a
> distinct concept from IMC, which is another detail that tends to get
> blurred.
>
> Before the firestorm starts, let me say that I've "been there, done that".
>
> > Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for
> > the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so
> > far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types
> > of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to
> > mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified
> > GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other
> > two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked
> > into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you
> > explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements
> > in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say
> > this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a
> > homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.
> >
> > Thanks, gentlemen.
> >
> > Bill B.
> >
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/5/2007
Skip wrote: "I thought the WAAS signal was generated from the ground, am I
wrong?"
Hello Skip, How WAAS works is a bit complex. Here is a brief description
from a US govt web site http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm.
------------------------- BRIEF WAAS DESCRIPTION
BEGINS -----------------------------
"How It Works
Unlike traditional ground-based navigation aids, the WAAS covers nearly all
of the National Airspace System (NAS). The WAAS provides augmentation
information to GPS receivers to enhance the accuracy and reliability of
position estimates.
The signals from GPS satellites are received across the NAS at many
widely-spaced Wide Area Reference Stations (WRS) sites. The WRS locations
are precisely surveyed so that any errors in the received GPS signals can be
detected.
The GPS information collected by the WRS sites is forwarded to the WAAS
Master Station (WMS) via a terrestrial communications network. At the WMS,
the WAAS augmentation messages are generated. These messages contain
information that allows GPS receivers to remove errors in the GPS signal,
allowing for a significant increase in location accuracy and reliability.
The augmentation messages are sent from the WMS to uplink stations to be
transmitted to navigation payloads on Geostationary communications
satellites.
The navigation payloads broadcast the augmentation messages on a GPS-like
signal. The GPS/WAAS receiver processes the WAAS augmentation message as
part of estimating position. The GPS-like signal from the navigation
transponder can also be used by the receiver as an additional source for
calculation of the user's position.
WAAS also provides indications to GPS/WAAS receivers of where the GPS system
is unusable due to system errors or other effects. Further, the WAAS system
was designed to the strictest of safety standards - users are notified
within six seconds of any issuance of hazardously misleading information
that would cause an error in the GPS position estimate."
------------------------------- BRIEF WAAS DESCRIPTION
ENDS --------------------------------
One significant point that I want to make is that while WAAS is not
considered a "ground based system" by the US Govt it still involves "ground
facilities" and 91.205 (d) (2) reads "Two way radio communications system
and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used".
My position is that an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) equipped
with TSO C146a Gamma-3 certification WAAS avionics complies with 91.205 (d)
(2).
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Subject: Avionics-List: WAAS
I thought the WAAS signal was generated from the ground, am I wrong? Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/5/2007
Hello Marcel, Thank you for your input. I welcome information from across
the ocean.
You wrote: "This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of
being able to
certify for IFR operation in your experimental."
One of my major points is that there is no such thing as "certifying for IFR
operation" in an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) here in the US.
The FAA has neither the capability or, under the present FAR's, the process
to certify an ABEA for IFR operations.
Instead, for the equipment required for IFR operations, the builder / pilot
is given the responsibility in the aircraft's Operating Limitations to
comply with FAR 91.205, part of which requires: "Two way radio
communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground
facilities to be used".
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Hi,
apologies for butting in on this. We have a RV10 with full Garmin stack and
have had quite some difficulty getting pin outs and ended up sending the
units to an avionics shop to get wired. (we purchased without looms)
I have since spoken to the main Garmin agent in the UK and he explained that
due to complexity of the avionics Garmin does not encourage(read does not
make available pinout)homebuilders to do their own wiring.
This can well be where the snag is in this story. You buy Garmin with a
manufactored loom which is tested for proper function and there's a degree
of assured quality.
This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of being able to
certify for IFR operation in your experimental.
It may also be a good idea to print a copy of 91.205 to hand over to your
DAR if he doesn't sign willingly! :-)
Marcel
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael T. Ice" <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
Bob,
Thanks for the explanation, I especially like your words, "This is a good
example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about a parts
functionality".
I am totally confused. I bought the Van's "Starter Solenoid" and "Master
Relay" listed on page 82 of their accessories catalog and now I can't figure
out if they are the same animals as what are required in the Z-11 drawing.
In the Z-11 drawing the required devices are listed as Battery Contactor and
Starter Contactor.
Are these animals the same with just different names or should I throw away
the units I have and order new ones from B&C with the proper names just to
be sure?
>From what I can glean so far it looks like they are the same, they are all
"contactors" just that one is continuous and one is intermittent. Is that
correct?
Thank you,
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:42 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery AND Starter Contactor?
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm new to the list, and just getting started on the wings of an RV-10,
> having finished the tail kit last month. I've read Bob's book, but as I'm
> starting to design my electrical system I have (at least for now) a
> question.
>
> The schematic in "the book" shows the main battery pos wire connected to
> the battery contactor and then from there to the starter contactor. I
> just viewed the HomebuiltHelper Video on wiring a homebuilt and they
> showed the battery connected directly to the "starter solenoid" which I
> think is meant to be called the starter contactor (at least it looks like
> one).
>
> So my newbie questions are:
>
> 1. Are both of these approaches correct?
>
> Both will "function" . . . but you won't find a type certified
> airplane wired as shown in the video. It is the function of the
> battery contactor to remove as much power from ship's wiring as
> possible when in the OFF condition.
>
> 2. Is the "starter contactor" any different than the "batter contactor?"
>
> In the book we talk about the differences between starter contactors
> and battery contactors. Starter contactors are intermittent duty devices
> that draw a lot of coil current (3-5 amps) to provide large closing
> forces on the contacts. Battery contactors continuous duty devices
> that draw typically 1 amp or less.
>
> 3. Am I correct in that the device in the video is not called a
> "solenoid?" From reading Bob's book, I'm guessing this is the "close but
> no cigar" example.
>
> All contactors (hi-current relays) have solenoids (short stroke,
> linear-motion motors) but not all solenoids have contacts. This is
> a good example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about
> a part's functionality.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
Don't confuse training and real life. Training is to learn something
(hopefully as much as you can cause most GA pilots will never see
training again). Real life is getting the job done. You could fly on
an IFR clearance without any navigation equipment. For example if you
filed IFR from say Phoenix AZ to Falcon Field AZ (15~20nm both under
Phoenix class B) and the ceiling and visibility was 3000 and 3, you
probably wouldn't need any of that fancy stuff or the old stuff for that
matter. The flight would be a tower to tower radar vectors to a visual
approach unless you wanted the non-precession instrument approach. All
you would need would be a Com radio and transponder with encoder, that's
it. You need the equipment needed to navigate, nothing more. So radar
is usable to pilots and that is what you use on a GCA or PAR approach.
Mike Larkin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Boyd
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: instrument approach types, was
91.205 (WAAS)
Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
violate the spirit of the thing, somehow ;-)
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, glen matejcek wrote:
>
> Hi Bill-
>
> Two types of non-precision approaches not on your list are VOR and
visual.
> Visual approaches tend to fall out of peoples thinking since they are,
uh,
> visual, but the fact remains that you can / will only be issued a
visual
> approach clearance while operating under IFR. IFR is, of course, a
> distinct concept from IMC, which is another detail that tends to get
> blurred.
>
> Before the firestorm starts, let me say that I've "been there, done
that".
>
> > Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading
for
> > the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so
> > far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different
types
> > of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret
to
> > mean an NDB would be required if there were not an
approach-certified
> > GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other
> > two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked
> > into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you
> > explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride
requirements
> > in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say
> > this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a
> > homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.
> >
> > Thanks, gentlemen.
> >
> > Bill B.
> >
>
> glen matejcek
> aerobubba(at)earthlink.net
>
>
--
12/12/2006
--
12/12/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | The D-25 essential buss diode |
Bob and others...
I am trying to use this diode to connect my endurance buss as well as
follow the Z-19 drawing for the fuel pump and ECU circuits. The
schematic I have seen for this device does not seem to correlate to the
orientation of the connection tabs for the device. I am stumped as to
which tab should be used in these various connections. Can someone
please help me? Please assume that you are talking to a 2 year old
electrical engineer...that is roughly my level of expertise!
Thanks,
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
>
>Bob,
>
>Thanks for the explanation, I especially like your words, "This is a good
>example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about a parts
>functionality".
>
>I am totally confused. I bought the Van's "Starter Solenoid" and "Master
>Relay" listed on page 82 of their accessories catalog and now I can't
>figure out if they are the same animals as what are required in the Z-11
>drawing.
>
>In the Z-11 drawing the required devices are listed as Battery Contactor
>and Starter Contactor.
>
>Are these animals the same with just different names or should I throw
>away the units I have and order new ones from B&C with the proper names
>just to be sure?
>
> From what I can glean so far it looks like they are the same, they are
> all "contactors" just that one is continuous and one is intermittent. Is
> that correct?
>
>Thank you,
>Mike
Yes. It's not uncommon for contactors to be referred to as
"solenoids" and they do indeed contain a solenoid for operation.
Starter solenoids mounted directly on starters have double duty -
the solenoid extends the pinion gear to mechanically engage the
starter. At the same time, it makes electrical connection between
the battery and starter motor by means of contacts in the same
assembly. Here, the proper term for the device is starter solenoid.
As soon as you pull it off the starter it becomes a fat relay more
properly called a contactor.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Brown" <romott(at)sprintmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
A comment on the three required approaches.
I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS to tke my instrument check
ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129 certified for enroute and terminal.
As long as the permanant data base depicts the required waypoints (NDB), the
SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and navigate to the missed approach
waypoints.
Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer approaches to meet the requirement.
And incidentally, the new 400/500 WAAS simulator is at Garmin now. Neat - a
glide slope signal is generated for the CDI as soon as you hit the FAF for
GPS approaches.
Incidentally, the instrument rating is highly effective at making you a
better pilot - however it does not enable you to do approaches down to
minimums. We have had an alarming bunch of crashes around the Carolinas for
folks trying to do instrument approaches when the ceiling was 300' and
visibility of a mile or less. Two Cirruses, two C182's and a twin Cessna
made the unwise decision to fly ILS approaches to destinations where the
weather was absolutely lousy. At least 14 souls lost in less than three
months around here. Absolutely appalling!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/5/2007
Hello Bill, Welcome to the world of IFR flight and thanks for your
questions.
You wrote: "....skip....can you explain how one might satisfy the training
and checkride requirements in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF
nav?"
No, I can't. But let's examine the reality of a WAAS-GPS-only equipped
plane. I can't speak for the high end integrated systems (Chelton, Avidyne,
etc.), but the Garmin 400 / 500 series GPS units that can be upgraded to a
430W or 530W configuration already contain VHF nav capability. I presume the
newly built 430W and 530W boxes will also contain VHF nav capability. So one
will continue to have VHF nav capability even after a WAAS upgrade or new
purchase with these kinds of boxes.
Maybe an issue is whether or not one should plan on / need a separate VHF
nav box such as an SL-30 for back up purposes.**
A) So with an approach qualified GPS (non WAAS capable) and VHF nav one can
have four different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1)
VOR, 2) Localizer, 3) ILS, 4) GPS.
B) With an approach qualified GPS (with WAAS capability) and VHF nav one can
have five different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1)
VOR, 2) Localizer, 3) ILS, 4) GPS, 5) an approach that requires WAAS to
achieve the published minimums.
C) With no approach qualified GPS and only VHF nav one can have three
different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1) VOR, 2)
Localizer, 3) ILS.
And the question of ADF capability in your aircraft doesn't need to raise
its ugly head unless you choose to use some GPS capability to substitute for
a NDB where permitted.
You might want to discuss the above positions with your examiner prior to
showing up for the practical test to determine if he agrees.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
**PS: I use my GNS 430 and SL-30 together whenever possible. If one intends
to fly IFR to the extent that an approach capable GPS is needed then I think
the investment in a separate VHF nav box is well justified.
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for
the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so
far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types
of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to
mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified
GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other
two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked
into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you
explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements
in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say
this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a
homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade.
Thanks, gentlemen.
Bill B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | small spade lugs |
1/5/2007
Hello Don, You wrote: "I am suing an engine monitor that had
no other good way to terminate the wires."
Would you please identify the manufacturer of this unit to all of us? Just a
simple statement of who made it and a description of the configuration at
issue would be helpfull. Thanks.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
From: <dsvs(at)ca.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: small spade lugs
Bob,
Allied sells "ferruls" that while not perfect, allow wire termination with
support
of the insulation in places that ring terminals will not fit. One down side
is the need for still another crimper. I am suing an engine monitor that
had
no other good way to terminate the wires. I will report later after some
flight
time as to weather these "ferrules" work out. Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Ice <aurbo(at)ak.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Battery AND Starter Contactor? |
Bob,
Thank you kind sir.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Date: Friday, January 5, 2007 6:30 am
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Battery AND Starter Contactor?
>
>
> >
> >Bob,
> >
> >Thanks for the explanation, I especially like your words, "This
> is a good
> >example of how common vernacular can confuse the details about a
> parts
> >functionality".
> >
> >I am totally confused. I bought the Van's "Starter Solenoid" and
> "Master
> >Relay" listed on page 82 of their accessories catalog and now I
> can't
> >figure out if they are the same animals as what are required in
> the Z-11
> >drawing.
> >
> >In the Z-11 drawing the required devices are listed as Battery
> Contactor
> >and Starter Contactor.
> >
> >Are these animals the same with just different names or should I
> throw
> >away the units I have and order new ones from B&C with the proper
> names
> >just to be sure?
> >
> > From what I can glean so far it looks like they are the same,
> they are
> > all "contactors" just that one is continuous and one is
> intermittent. Is
> > that correct?
> >
> >Thank you,
> >Mike
>
> Yes. It's not uncommon for contactors to be referred to as
> "solenoids" and they do indeed contain a solenoid for operation.
> Starter solenoids mounted directly on starters have double
> duty -
> the solenoid extends the pinion gear to mechanically engage the
> starter. At the same time, it makes electrical connection between
> the battery and starter motor by means of contacts in the same
> assembly. Here, the proper term for the device is starter
> solenoid.
> As soon as you pull it off the starter it becomes a fat relay more
> properly called a contactor.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
Thanks, Mike.
The thread started out being about whether WAAS GPS met the letter of
the law for "ground-based facilities to be used," and I asked a
question expanding the scope from operational IFR to include the
training environment, which is where I'm soon to be.
I've concluded that, even though our current ground-based VHF
technology is antiquated, it is essential for adequate IFR
instrumentation in today's cockpit, and will be in continued use for
decades more, if only because the system is standardized worldwide and
there are a lot of nations without the funding to replace VHF 1940's
tech with anything better for the air carriers to use. It might be
somehow legal to fly IFR in IMC with only a WAAS GPS for nav and
approach, but I don't think for a minute I'd ever get an istructor or
examiner willing to train and sign me off that way, so it's back to
plan A for me, which means there will be an SL-30 in the panel besides
the GPS gear. Redundancy is a good thing.
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, Mike wrote:
>
> Don't confuse training and real life. Training is to learn something
> (hopefully as much as you can cause most GA pilots will never see
> training again). Real life is getting the job done. You could fly on
> an IFR clearance without any navigation equipment. For example if you
> filed IFR from say Phoenix AZ to Falcon Field AZ (15~20nm both under
> Phoenix class B) and the ceiling and visibility was 3000 and 3, you
> probably wouldn't need any of that fancy stuff or the old stuff for that
> matter. The flight would be a tower to tower radar vectors to a visual
> approach unless you wanted the non-precession instrument approach. All
> you would need would be a Com radio and transponder with encoder, that's
> it. You need the equipment needed to navigate, nothing more. So radar
> is usable to pilots and that is what you use on a GCA or PAR approach.
>
> Mike Larkin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
> Boyd
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:19 AM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: instrument approach types, was
> 91.205 (WAAS)
>
>
>
> Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
> rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
> GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
> military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
> with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
> violate the spirit of the thing, somehow ;-)
>
> -Bill B.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The D-25 essential buss diode |
>
>
>Bob and others...
>I am trying to use this diode to connect my endurance buss as well as
>follow the Z-19 drawing for the fuel pump and ECU circuits. The schematic
>I have seen for this device does not seem to correlate to the orientation
>of the connection tabs for the device. I am stumped as to which tab
>should be used in these various connections. Can someone please help
>me? Please assume that you are talking to a 2 year old electrical
>engineer...that is roughly my level of expertise!
>Thanks,
>Bill B
See:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/diode_wiring.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg
Note that the (+) terminal ties to the e-bus and is easily identified
by it's orientation (90-degree twist with respect to other three terminals).
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)GMAIL.COM> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten that VOR and localizer
were two distinct approaches ; I badly need to quit simply
reading and start actually flying this stuff. But right now my plane
has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a VOR - just a _slight_
impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the pay-as-I-go plan.
-Bill B.
On 1/5/07, Ron Brown wrote:
>
> A comment on the three required approaches.
>
> I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS to tke my instrument check
> ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129 certified for enroute and terminal.
> As long as the permanant data base depicts the required waypoints (NDB), the
> SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and navigate to the missed approach
> waypoints.
>
> Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer approaches to meet the requirement.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
Good Afternoon Bill,
Chances are you already know this, but just in case
there is any question!!
Many VOR, ILS, Localizer and even NDB approaches
require the use of an ADF or DME for them to be
executed. Sometimes that information will be in the
title such as "VOR DME to Rwy 31" Other times it will
just be a note somewhere on the page that says "DME
required" or "ADF required".
To shoot those approaches you must be so equipped
UNLESS you have an IFR approved GPS. It does NOT have
to be an approach approved set. One that is only
approved for Enroute and Terminal guidance is
sufficient.
The GPS may be used in Lieu of ADF and/or DME for
almost all purposes anywhere in the United States
National Airspace System.
One big No/No. You cannot use the GPS to execute an
NDB approach unless it is equipped with an overlay
approach. In that case, it will say "ADF (or GPS) to
Rwy 31".
A further restriction is that the GPS being used must
have a current data card installed and it must be used
to obtain the data.
Any other time when the words ADF or DME are included
in the approach name or where there is a note stating
that an ADF or a DME is required, the GPS may be used
for whatever purpose would have required an ADF or
DME.
Unfortunately, that provision is not well known. You
can check it out in the AIM section 1-1-19. paragraph
f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- Bill Boyd wrote:
>
>
> In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten that
> VOR and localizer
> were two distinct approaches ; I badly need
> to quit simply
> reading and start actually flying this stuff. But
> right now my plane
> has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a VOR
> - just a _slight_
> impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
>
> Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the
> pay-as-I-go plan.
>
> -Bill B.
>
> On 1/5/07, Ron Brown wrote:
> Brown"
> >
> > A comment on the three required approaches.
> >
> > I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS to
> tke my instrument check
> > ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129 certified
> for enroute and terminal.
> > As long as the permanant data base depicts the
> required waypoints (NDB), the
> > SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and
> navigate to the missed approach
> > waypoints.
> >
> > Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer approaches
> to meet the requirement.
> >
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
> Web Forums!
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage |
regulator failure
Add me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about 75 hours
on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this happening before
but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator to a repair shop and for
$20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no such place around here so far that
can do that....but that's not why I'm writing.
I want to learn if I can read this problem in advance in the future. I did recently
have a battery that got weak. It put out about 11.2 volts one day out
of the blue no matter how long I charged it with my Battery Tender. I replaced
it and flew a couple of hours on the new battery before the voltage regulator
went belly up. Now the alternator puts out about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn
on all the lights I can get the voltage to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle.
Why would the battery probem eventually lead to the regulator problem (I've heard
it could) and can it be pretty much guaranteed to do so under certain conditions?
thx,
lucky
Add me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about
75 hours on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this happening
before but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator to a repair
shop and for $20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no such place around
here so far that can do that....but that's not why I'm writing.
I want to learn if I can read this problem in advance in the future.
I did recently have a battery that got weak. It put out about
11.2 volts one day out of the blue no matter how long I charged it with my Battery
Tender. I replaced it and flew a couple of hours on the new battery
before the voltage regulator went belly up. Now the alternator puts out
about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn on all the lights I can get the voltage
to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle.
Why would the battery probem eventually lead to the regulator problem (I've
heard it could) and can it be pretty much guaranteed to do so under certain
conditions?
thx,
lucky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated |
voltage regulator failure
>Add me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about 75
>hours on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this
>happening before but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator
>to a repair shop and for $20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no such
>place around here so far that can do that....but that's not why I'm writing.
>
>I want to learn if I can read this problem in advance in the future.
>I did recently have a battery that got weak.
What kind and how old was the battery? Did it
get any kind of testing done since new to track
its condition?
>It put out about 11.2 volts one day out of the blue no matter how long I
>charged it with my Battery Tender. I replaced it and flew a couple of
>hours on the new battery before the voltage regulator went belly up.
>Now the alternator puts out about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn on all
>the lights I can get the voltage to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle.
It may have been a regulation problem since day-one. Do you
monitor voltage in the cockpit? Are you sure that an over-zealous
IR alternator didn't cook the battery?
>
>Why would the battery probem eventually lead to the regulator
>problem (I've heard it could) and can it be pretty much guaranteed
>to do so under certain conditions?
I'm aware of no combination in the physics that suggests
a battery can damage a regulator. Most likely, it's the
other way around.
The symptoms you describe mimic a shorted regulator
the causes the alternator to run flat-out. The only reason
the bus voltage is not climbing quickly to 100 volts or
more is that your new battery is doing its level best
to use up the alternator's output. Fortunately, the
alternator is current limited and the new battery fairly
robust . . . but the alternator will eventually win.
The regulator is not difficult to replace but you need to
know the make and model of your alternator to acquire the
right replacement part.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated |
voltage regulator failure
It was an Odyssey pc680 and it's van's 60 amp alternator with the internal voltage
regulator. I don't know for sure the make but many say it's a nippondenso
(ND). I didn't take it off yet.
Yes, the voltage is monitored all the time by my EIS & EFIS and there's a pretty
tight voltage range which would trigger an "alarm" if it went out of range.
It never did prior to just oughtright dropping a couple of volts permanently.
But it was my original battery which I abused throughout the build process and
I'm not the least bit surprised. I got my 4 years money's worth as far as
the battery goes....
No, I didn't actively track the battery's voltage becuase I ALWAYS left it on a
trickle charger while hangared at the home airport and it never gave me any grief
during long trips like to Oshkosh plus the alarm range was pretty tight
on the EFIS (I guess you could say that's gross tracking to some extent). My
bus voltage once the engine is running has always been about 14.2 volts plus or
minus .1
I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator so this seamed
to have validated that statement. For sure though, from my observations,
the battery appeared to go bad first then 2 hours later after a new battery
was installed the regulator seems to have failed. My current battery voltage is
really good, even after the voltage regulator failure stress on the battery.
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
>
>
>
> >Add me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about 75
> >hours on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this
> >happening before but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator
> >to a repair shop and for $20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no such
> >place around here so far that can do that....but that's not why I'm writing.
> >
> >I want to learn if I can read this problem in advance in the future.
> >I did recently have a battery that got weak.
>
> What kind and how old was the battery? Did it
> get any kind of testing done since new to track
> its condition?
>
> >It put out about 11.2 volts one day out of the blue no matter how long I
> >charged it with my Battery Tender. I replaced it and flew a couple of
> >hours on the new battery before the voltage regulator went belly up.
> >Now the alternator puts out about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn on all
> >the lights I can get the voltage to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle.
>
> It may have been a regulation problem since day-one. Do you
> monitor voltage in the cockpit? Are you sure that an over-zealous
> IR alternator didn't cook the battery?
> >
> >Why would the battery probem eventually lead to the regulator
> >problem (I've heard it could) and can it be pretty much guaranteed
> >to do so under certain conditions?
>
> I'm aware of no combination in the physics that suggests
> a battery can damage a regulator. Most likely, it's the
> other way around.
>
> The symptoms you describe mimic a shorted regulator
> the causes the alternator to run flat-out. The only reason
> the bus voltage is not climbing quickly to 100 volts or
> more is that your new battery is doing its level best
> to use up the alternator's output. Fortunately, the
> alternator is current limited and the new battery fairly
> robust . . . but the alternator will eventually win.
>
> The regulator is not difficult to replace but you need to
> know the make and model of your alternator to acquire the
> right replacement part.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
It was an Odyssey pc680 and it's van's 60 amp alternator with the internal
voltage regulator. I don't know for sure the make but many say it's a nippondenso
(ND). I didn't take it off yet.
Yes, the voltage is monitored all the time by my EIS & EFIS and there's
a pretty tight voltage range which would trigger an "alarm" if it went out of
range. It never did prior to just oughtright dropping a couple of volts
permanently. But it was my original battery which I abused throughout
the build process and I'm not the least bit surprised. I got my 4 years
money's worth as far as the battery goes....
No, I didn't actively track the battery's voltage becuase I ALWAYS left it
on a trickle charger while hangared at the home airport and it never gave me
any grief during long trips like to Oshkosh plus the alarm range was pretty
tight on the EFIS (I guess you could say that's gross tracking to some extent).
My bus voltage once the engine is running has always been about 14.2
volts plus or minus .1
I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator so this
seamed to have validated that statement. For sure though, from my observations,
the battery appeared to go bad first then 2 hours later after a new
battery was installed the regulator seems to have failed. My current
battery voltage is really good, even after the voltage regulator failure stress
on the battery.
lucky
> --> AeroElectric-List
message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III"
>
>
me to the list of folks how had this happen to them. I have about 75
>
>hours on this alternator. Scott at Van's said he's heard of this
>
>happening before but not often. He suggested to just take the alternator
>
>to a repair shop and for $20 bucks get it fixed. Well, I found no
such
> >place around here so far that can do that....but that's not
why I'm writing.
> >
> >I want to learn if I can read this
problem in advance in the future.
> >I did recently have a battery
that got weak.
>
> What kind and how ol
d was
the battery? Did it
> get any kind of testing done since new to track
>
its condition?
>
> >It put out about 11.2 volts one day
out of the blue no matter how long I
> >charged it with my Battery
Tender. I replaced it and flew a couple of
> >hours on the new battery
before the voltage regulator went belly up.
> >Now the alternator
puts out about 18 to 19 volts. If I turn on all
> >the lights I can
get the voltage to drop to about 13 - 14 at idle.
>
> It may have
been a regulation problem since day-one. Do you
> monitor voltage in
the cockpit? Are you sure that an over-zealous
> IR alternator didn't
cook the battery?
> >
> >Why would the battery probem eventually
lead to the regulator
> >problem (I've heard it could) and can
it be pretty much guaranteed
> >to do so under certain conditions?
>
> I'm aware of no combination in th
e phys
e many
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
>Bob you said:Any other time when the >words ADF or DME are included
>in the approach name or where there is a >note stating
>that an ADF or a DME is required, the >GPS may be used
>for whatever purpose would have ?>required an ADF or
>DME.Unfortunately, that
>provision is not well known. You
>can check it out in the AIM section 1-1->19. paragraph
>f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
Can you be more specific ? Are you refering to "
NOTE-
This approval does not alter the conditions and requirements for use of GPS
to fly existing nonprecision instrument approach procedures as defined in
the GPS approach overlay program. "
or are you refering to: "(6) Charted requirements for ADF and/or DME can be
met using the GPS system, except for use as the principal instrument
approach navigation source."
The specifics seem rather sketchy for me to come to any real conclusion. It
just makes no sense that a RAIM GPS can be used for substitution of NDB/DME
wp's and not be allowed on an accual NDB approach since they are not very
precise to start with.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "OldBob Siegfried" <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500
>
>
> Good Afternoon Bill,
>
> Chances are you already know this, but just in case
> there is any question!!
>
> Many VOR, ILS, Localizer and even NDB approaches
> require the use of an ADF or DME for them to be
> executed. Sometimes that information will be in the
> title such as "VOR DME to Rwy 31" Other times it will
> just be a note somewhere on the page that says "DME
> required" or "ADF required".
>
> To shoot those approaches you must be so equipped
> UNLESS you have an IFR approved GPS. It does NOT have
> to be an approach approved set. One that is only
> approved for Enroute and Terminal guidance is
> sufficient.
>
> The GPS may be used in Lieu of ADF and/or DME for
> almost all purposes anywhere in the United States
> National Airspace System.
>
> One big No/No. You cannot use the GPS to execute an
> NDB approach unless it is equipped with an overlay
> approach. In that case, it will say "ADF (or GPS) to
> Rwy 31".
>
> A further restriction is that the GPS being used must
> have a current data card installed and it must be used
> to obtain the data.
>
> Any other time when the words ADF or DME are included
> in the approach name or where there is a note stating
> that an ADF or a DME is required, the GPS may be used
> for whatever purpose would have required an ADF or
> DME.
>
> Unfortunately, that provision is not well known. You
> can check it out in the AIM section 1-1-19. paragraph
> f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> --- Bill Boyd wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten that
>> VOR and localizer
>> were two distinct approaches ; I badly need
>> to quit simply
>> reading and start actually flying this stuff. But
>> right now my plane
>> has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a VOR
>> - just a _slight_
>> impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
>>
>> Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the
>> pay-as-I-go plan.
>>
>> -Bill B.
>>
>> On 1/5/07, Ron Brown wrote:
>> Brown"
>> >
>> > A comment on the three required approaches.
>> >
>> > I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS to
>> tke my instrument check
>> > ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129 certified
>> for enroute and terminal.
>> > As long as the permanant data base depicts the
>> required waypoints (NDB), the
>> > SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and
>> navigate to the missed approach
>> > waypoints.
>> >
>> > Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer approaches
>> to meet the requirement.
>> >
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>> Web Forums!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
1/5/2007
Hello Bill,
1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread."
Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the picture a
bit.
2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind: about
the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand
Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install"
Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this
equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past.
Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics meet
either TSO C145 or 146A.
Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS / internal
GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what additional legal
value it would have when operating IFR. Like any other reasonably capable
GPS unit it could provide very beneficial situational awareness support.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:33 PM
Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
> OC, let me fess up here... I forgot that the GNS-430 includes the vhf
> nav comm side of things! I read the actual words in your post, but my
> brain fast-forwarded to the question more heavily on my mind: about
> the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand
> Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install, the one that
> would let me omit the 430 from my purchase list and use just an SL30
> in its place (and save mega-thousands). So my question was based in
> part on faulty assumptions of what was inside the 430- and
> partly on my impatience to get my own questions answered. Sorry to
> cloud any points in the thread.
>
> -Bill B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | OldBob Siegfried <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
Good Evening Randy,
Both of the paragraphs you have quoted tell the truth.
The simple explanation is that an IFR approved GPS CAN
be used for all of those functions under the
provisions of "GPS in Lieu of DME and ADF".
Why did they not allow it to be used to execute an NDB
approach? Because their policy was that all waypoints
had to be auto-sequenced for any approach flown by
GPS.
The operator would have been required to either load a
way point or think a little bit about what they were
doing.
When we were fighting to get the "In Lieu Of"
provisions approved, every FAA person I talked to
agreed that doing as you suggest would be better than
what we now have for an NDB approach, but it didn't
fit FAA policy. We got what we could, but not
everything we wanted.
If you have any more questions concerning the
application of the current policy, please ask.
The key thing is that: For flight in the USNAS we
don't need a DME or an ADF as long as we have an IFR
approved GPS with at least enroute and terminal
capability.
The language in 1-1-19 gets a little convoluted
because so many different departments of the FAA had
to sign off on the final interpretation. Each one
wanted to add their own two bits worth.
It took us three years to get it through in even that
very rough form.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
--- 6440 Auto Parts wrote:
> Parts"
>
>
>
> >Bob you said:Any other time when the >words ADF or
> DME are included
> >in the approach name or where there is a >note
> stating
> >that an ADF or a DME is required, the >GPS may be
> used
> >for whatever purpose would have ?>required an ADF
> or
> >DME.Unfortunately, that
> >provision is not well known. You
> >can check it out in the AIM section 1-1->19.
> paragraph
> >f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
>
> Can you be more specific ? Are you refering to "
> NOTE-
> This approval does not alter the conditions and
> requirements for use of GPS
> to fly existing nonprecision instrument approach
> procedures as defined in
> the GPS approach overlay program. "
>
> or are you refering to: "(6) Charted requirements
> for ADF and/or DME can be
> met using the GPS system, except for use as the
> principal instrument
> approach navigation source."
>
> The specifics seem rather sketchy for me to come to
> any real conclusion. It
> just makes no sense that a RAIM GPS can be used for
> substitution of NDB/DME
> wp's and not be allowed on an accual NDB approach
> since they are not very
> precise to start with.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "OldBob Siegfried" <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:43 PM
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: 91.205
> (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500
>
>
> Siegfried
> >
> >
> > Good Afternoon Bill,
> >
> > Chances are you already know this, but just in
> case
> > there is any question!!
> >
> > Many VOR, ILS, Localizer and even NDB approaches
> > require the use of an ADF or DME for them to be
> > executed. Sometimes that information will be in
> the
> > title such as "VOR DME to Rwy 31" Other times it
> will
> > just be a note somewhere on the page that says
> "DME
> > required" or "ADF required".
> >
> > To shoot those approaches you must be so equipped
> > UNLESS you have an IFR approved GPS. It does NOT
> have
> > to be an approach approved set. One that is only
> > approved for Enroute and Terminal guidance is
> > sufficient.
> >
> > The GPS may be used in Lieu of ADF and/or DME for
> > almost all purposes anywhere in the United States
> > National Airspace System.
> >
> > One big No/No. You cannot use the GPS to execute
> an
> > NDB approach unless it is equipped with an overlay
> > approach. In that case, it will say "ADF (or GPS)
> to
> > Rwy 31".
> >
> > A further restriction is that the GPS being used
> must
> > have a current data card installed and it must be
> used
> > to obtain the data.
> >
> > Any other time when the words ADF or DME are
> included
> > in the approach name or where there is a note
> stating
> > that an ADF or a DME is required, the GPS may be
> used
> > for whatever purpose would have required an ADF or
> > DME.
> >
> > Unfortunately, that provision is not well known.
> You
> > can check it out in the AIM section 1-1-19.
> paragraph
> > f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
> >
> > Happy Skies,
> >
> > Old Bob
> >
> > --- Bill Boyd wrote:
> >
> Boyd"
> >>
> >>
> >> In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten
> that
> >> VOR and localizer
> >> were two distinct approaches ; I badly
> need
> >> to quit simply
> >> reading and start actually flying this stuff.
> But
> >> right now my plane
> >> has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a
> VOR
> >> - just a _slight_
> >> impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
> >>
> >> Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the
> >> pay-as-I-go plan.
> >>
> >> -Bill B.
> >>
> >> On 1/5/07, Ron Brown
> wrote:
> >> Brown"
> >> >
> >> > A comment on the three required approaches.
> >> >
> >> > I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS
> to
> >> tke my instrument check
> >> > ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129
> certified
> >> for enroute and terminal.
> >> > As long as the permanant data base depicts the
> >> required waypoints (NDB), the
> >> > SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and
> >> navigate to the missed approach
> >> > waypoints.
> >> >
> >> > Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer
> approaches
> >> to meet the requirement.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> browse
> >> Subscriptions page,
> >> FAQ,
> >>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> >>
> >> Web Forums!
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
=== message truncated ==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
Bob I'm to sure if I want to laugh or cry. I appreciate your
willingness to share but not sure if it would help me understand since
seemingly there is no logical understanding. Thank goodness as far as I know
anyway there is an accual GPS approach at most any airport that has an NDB
approach.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "OldBob Siegfried" <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 5:09 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500
>
>
> Good Evening Randy,
>
> Both of the paragraphs you have quoted tell the truth.
>
> The simple explanation is that an IFR approved GPS CAN
> be used for all of those functions under the
> provisions of "GPS in Lieu of DME and ADF".
>
> Why did they not allow it to be used to execute an NDB
> approach? Because their policy was that all waypoints
> had to be auto-sequenced for any approach flown by
> GPS.
>
> The operator would have been required to either load a
> way point or think a little bit about what they were
> doing.
>
> When we were fighting to get the "In Lieu Of"
> provisions approved, every FAA person I talked to
> agreed that doing as you suggest would be better than
> what we now have for an NDB approach, but it didn't
> fit FAA policy. We got what we could, but not
> everything we wanted.
>
> If you have any more questions concerning the
> application of the current policy, please ask.
>
> The key thing is that: For flight in the USNAS we
> don't need a DME or an ADF as long as we have an IFR
> approved GPS with at least enroute and terminal
> capability.
>
> The language in 1-1-19 gets a little convoluted
> because so many different departments of the FAA had
> to sign off on the final interpretation. Each one
> wanted to add their own two bits worth.
>
> It took us three years to get it through in even that
> very rough form.
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
>
> --- 6440 Auto Parts wrote:
>
>> Parts"
>>
>>
>>
>> >Bob you said:Any other time when the >words ADF or
>> DME are included
>> >in the approach name or where there is a >note
>> stating
>> >that an ADF or a DME is required, the >GPS may be
>> used
>> >for whatever purpose would have ?>required an ADF
>> or
>> >DME.Unfortunately, that
>> >provision is not well known. You
>> >can check it out in the AIM section 1-1->19.
>> paragraph
>> >f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
>>
>> Can you be more specific ? Are you refering to "
>> NOTE-
>> This approval does not alter the conditions and
>> requirements for use of GPS
>> to fly existing nonprecision instrument approach
>> procedures as defined in
>> the GPS approach overlay program. "
>>
>> or are you refering to: "(6) Charted requirements
>> for ADF and/or DME can be
>> met using the GPS system, except for use as the
>> principal instrument
>> approach navigation source."
>>
>> The specifics seem rather sketchy for me to come to
>> any real conclusion. It
>> just makes no sense that a RAIM GPS can be used for
>> substitution of NDB/DME
>> wp's and not be allowed on an accual NDB approach
>> since they are not very
>> precise to start with.
>>
>> Randy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "OldBob Siegfried" <oldbob(at)BeechOwners.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:43 PM
>> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: Re: 91.205
>> (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500
>>
>>
>> Siegfried
>> >
>> >
>> > Good Afternoon Bill,
>> >
>> > Chances are you already know this, but just in
>> case
>> > there is any question!!
>> >
>> > Many VOR, ILS, Localizer and even NDB approaches
>> > require the use of an ADF or DME for them to be
>> > executed. Sometimes that information will be in
>> the
>> > title such as "VOR DME to Rwy 31" Other times it
>> will
>> > just be a note somewhere on the page that says
>> "DME
>> > required" or "ADF required".
>> >
>> > To shoot those approaches you must be so equipped
>> > UNLESS you have an IFR approved GPS. It does NOT
>> have
>> > to be an approach approved set. One that is only
>> > approved for Enroute and Terminal guidance is
>> > sufficient.
>> >
>> > The GPS may be used in Lieu of ADF and/or DME for
>> > almost all purposes anywhere in the United States
>> > National Airspace System.
>> >
>> > One big No/No. You cannot use the GPS to execute
>> an
>> > NDB approach unless it is equipped with an overlay
>> > approach. In that case, it will say "ADF (or GPS)
>> to
>> > Rwy 31".
>> >
>> > A further restriction is that the GPS being used
>> must
>> > have a current data card installed and it must be
>> used
>> > to obtain the data.
>> >
>> > Any other time when the words ADF or DME are
>> included
>> > in the approach name or where there is a note
>> stating
>> > that an ADF or a DME is required, the GPS may be
>> used
>> > for whatever purpose would have required an ADF or
>> > DME.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, that provision is not well known.
>> You
>> > can check it out in the AIM section 1-1-19.
>> paragraph
>> > f.,1 (a) through (d), and g.
>> >
>> > Happy Skies,
>> >
>> > Old Bob
>> >
>> > --- Bill Boyd wrote:
>> >
>> Boyd"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In case you're wondering, Ron, I had forgotten
>> that
>> >> VOR and localizer
>> >> were two distinct approaches ; I badly
>> need
>> >> to quit simply
>> >> reading and start actually flying this stuff.
>> But
>> >> right now my plane
>> >> has only a VFR GPS for nav equipment, not even a
>> VOR
>> >> - just a _slight_
>> >> impediment to gaining familiarity ;-)
>> >>
>> >> Upgraded full glass panel is under way on the
>> >> pay-as-I-go plan.
>> >>
>> >> -Bill B.
>> >>
>> >> On 1/5/07, Ron Brown
>> wrote:
>> >> Brown"
>> >> >
>> >> > A comment on the three required approaches.
>> >> >
>> >> > I used a Apollo SL 60 and King 155 VOR and GS
>> to
>> >> tke my instrument check
>> >> > ride. (No DME or ADF). The SL 60 is 129
>> certified
>> >> for enroute and terminal.
>> >> > As long as the permanant data base depicts the
>> >> required waypoints (NDB), the
>> >> > SL 60 is qualified to do the approaches and
>> >> navigate to the missed approach
>> >> > waypoints.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then you can do ILS, VOR and Localizer
>> approaches
>> >> to meet the requirement.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> browse
>> >> Subscriptions page,
>> >> FAQ,
>> >>
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>> >>
>> >> Web Forums!
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>>
>>
> === message truncated ==
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) and Garmin 400/500 |
Good Evening Randy,
I am sure there is a logical understanding available, it just seems I am not
able to explain it very well.
If you can frame an individual question, I would be happy to attempt an
individual answer that may make it a bit more clear.
Incidentally, during the time we were working on the approval, I did ask for
the right to use the GPS to shoot NDB approaches. One of the things I was
told was that it really wouldn't make any difference because all NDB
approaches would either have an overlay or a standalone GPS to the same runway
with
the same or lower minima. Unfortunately the FAA policy has changed since then
and they will no longer approve a new overlay. There have been a few new NDB
approaches placed in service with no overlay and with no alternative GPS
approach. I don't like it either, but that is the way it happened.
One thing that I have found out is that there are very few folks who care.
Consequently, we have very little chance of getting anything changed. If I
delve back into my wandering mind a bit, I imagine I could come up with a half
dozen or more things we asked for and didn't get because not enough people took
the time to back our efforts.
Such is life.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease and all that jazz!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/5/2007 5:28:37 P.M. Central Standard Time,
sales(at)6440autoparts.com writes:
Bob I'm to sure if I want to laugh or cry. I appreciate your
willingness to share but not sure if it would help me understand since
seemingly there is no logical understanding. Thank goodness as far as I know
anyway there is an accual GPS approach at most any airport that has an NDB
approach.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
My understanding from talking to them is that it would be fully
approach-legal in its final form. How they plan to accomplish that
"legislatively" I am less clear on, but they convinced me that, for my
purposes (IFR with gps approach capability), their unit plus an SL30
would completely do away with the need for a 430 or 530 in my panel.
Maybe someone (else) from the GRT_EFIS group will chime in here.
-Bill
On 1/5/07, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> 1/5/2007
>
> Hello Bill,
>
> 1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread."
>
> Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the picture a
> bit.
>
> 2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind: about
> the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand
> Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install"
>
> Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this
> equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past.
>
> Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics meet
> either TSO C145 or 146A.
>
> Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS / internal
> GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what additional legal
> value it would have when operating IFR. Like any other reasonably capable
> GPS unit it could provide very beneficial situational awareness support.
>
> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>
>
> > OC, let me fess up here... I forgot that the GNS-430 includes the vhf
> > nav comm side of things! I read the actual words in your post, but my
> > brain fast-forwarded to the question more heavily on my mind: about
> > the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand
> > Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install, the one that
> > would let me omit the 430 from my purchase list and use just an SL30
> > in its place (and save mega-thousands). So my question was based in
> > part on faulty assumptions of what was inside the 430- and
> > partly on my impatience to get my own questions answered. Sorry to
> > cloud any points in the thread.
> >
> > -Bill B.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | The D-25 essential buss diode |
Thanks, Bob...That answers my confusion about the E-buss, but I am still
stuck on the Z-19 diodes that bring both batteries power into the fuel
pump and ECU...There are two ins and one out and I don't understand how
to tell which is which....??
Thanks,
Bill B
> Subject: Re: The D-25 essential buss diode
> From: Robert L. Nuckolls, III (nuckollsr(at)cox.net)
> Date: Fri Jan 05 - 9:52 AM
>
>
> >
> >
> >Bob and others...
> >I am trying to use this diode to connect my endurance buss as well as
> >follow the Z-19 drawing for the fuel pump and ECU circuits. The schematic
> >I have seen for this device does not seem to correlate to the orientation
> >of the connection tabs for the device. I am stumped as to which tab
> >should be used in these various connections. Can someone please help
> >me? Please assume that you are talking to a 2 year old electrical
> >engineer...that is roughly my level of expertise!
> >Thanks,
> >Bill B
>
>
> See:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/diode_wiring.jpg
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Misc/s401-25.jpg
>
> Note that the (+) terminal ties to the e-bus and is easily identified
> by it's orientation (90-degree twist with respect to other three terminals).
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
See http://www.grtavionics.com/documents/Horizon%20System%20Flyer.pdf
"The addition of the internal GPS receiver eliminates the need for an
external
GPS, or may be used as a backup to your primary GPS. Available in two
versions. The standard WAAS GPS module is perfect for VFR use, or as backup
to an external GPS. The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity
monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR GPS
TSO C129 and C146."
Standard WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $450
RAIM-Equipped WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $750
Bret Smith
RV-9A (91314)
Mineral Bluff, GA
www.FlightInnovations.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill Boyd
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
-->
My understanding from talking to them is that it would be fully
approach-legal in its final form. How they plan to accomplish that
"legislatively" I am less clear on, but they convinced me that, for my
purposes (IFR with gps approach capability), their unit plus an SL30 would
completely do away with the need for a 430 or 530 in my panel.
Maybe someone (else) from the GRT_EFIS group will chime in here.
-Bill
On 1/5/07, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> 1/5/2007
>
> Hello Bill,
>
> 1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread."
>
> Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the
> picture a bit.
>
> 2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind:
> about the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by
> Grand Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install"
>
> Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this
> equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past.
>
> Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics
> meet either TSO C145 or 146A.
>
> Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS /
> internal GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what
> additional legal value it would have when operating IFR. Like any
> other reasonably capable GPS unit it could provide very beneficial
situational awareness support.
>
> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:33 PM
> Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>
>
> > OC, let me fess up here... I forgot that the GNS-430 includes the
> > vhf nav comm side of things! I read the actual words in your post,
> > but my brain fast-forwarded to the question more heavily on my mind:
> > about the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by
> > Grand Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install, the
> > one that would let me omit the 430 from my purchase list and use
> > just an SL30 in its place (and save mega-thousands). So my question
> > was based in part on faulty assumptions of what was inside the
> > 430- and partly on my impatience to get my own questions
> > answered. Sorry to cloud any points in the thread.
> >
> > -Bill B.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
TSOs have been issued.
Kevin Horton
On 5 Jan 2007, at 22:05, Bret Smith wrote:
>
>
> See http://www.grtavionics.com/documents/Horizon%20System%20Flyer.pdf
>
> "The addition of the internal GPS receiver eliminates the need for an
> external
> GPS, or may be used as a backup to your primary GPS. Available in two
> versions. The standard WAAS GPS module is perfect for VFR use, or
> as backup
> to an external GPS. The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity
> monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR
> GPS
> TSO C129 and C146."
>
> Standard WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $450
> RAIM-Equipped WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $750
>
>
> Bret Smith
> RV-9A (91314)
> Mineral Bluff, GA
> www.FlightInnovations.com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Bill Boyd
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 6:52 PM
> To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>
> -->
>
> My understanding from talking to them is that it would be fully
> approach-legal in its final form. How they plan to accomplish that
> "legislatively" I am less clear on, but they convinced me that, for my
> purposes (IFR with gps approach capability), their unit plus an
> SL30 would
> completely do away with the need for a 430 or 530 in my panel.
> Maybe someone (else) from the GRT_EFIS group will chime in here.
>
> -Bill
>
> On 1/5/07, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>>
>> 1/5/2007
>>
>> Hello Bill,
>>
>> 1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread."
>>
>> Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the
>> picture a bit.
>>
>> 2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind:
>> about the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by
>> Grand Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install"
>>
>> Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this
>> equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past.
>>
>> Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics
>> meet either TSO C145 or 146A.
>>
>> Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS /
>> internal GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what
>> additional legal value it would have when operating IFR. Like any
>> other reasonably capable GPS unit it could provide very beneficial
> situational awareness support.
>>
>> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering
>> knowledge.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:33 PM
>> Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
>>
>>
>>> OC, let me fess up here... I forgot that the GNS-430 includes the
>>> vhf nav comm side of things! I read the actual words in your post,
>>> but my brain fast-forwarded to the question more heavily on my mind:
>>> about the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by
>>> Grand Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install, the
>>> one that would let me omit the 430 from my purchase list and use
>>> just an SL30 in its place (and save mega-thousands). So my question
>>> was based in part on faulty assumptions of what was inside the
>>> 430- and partly on my impatience to get my own questions
>>> answered. Sorry to cloud any points in the thread.
>>>
>>> -Bill B.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Good Morning Kevin,
I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is a TSO
required for operations of a home built aircraft?
It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft.
The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight appears
to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator determines that the
equipment meets the standards required for IFR flight, the stuff should be
acceptable.
What do you feel is required?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
TSOs have been issued.
Kevin Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Bob,
You may be right? But most, if not all, of us lack the test equipment
to 'prove' that a given piece of equipment "meets the standards
required for IFR flight"?!
If the manufacture hasn't gone to the trouble and expense to show
their equipment meets 'standards' how can I? . . . Buying TSO'd
reduces that concern if you have it in the first place.
It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure the 'equipment requirements' for
IFR Flight indicate that certain equipment meet TSO standards?
My $0.02 worth!
Bob in SE Iowa
RV-8 builder - finishing slowly
On 1/6/07, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Good Morning Kevin,
>
> I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is a TSO
> required for operations of a home built aircraft?
>
> It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft.
>
> The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight appears
> to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator determines that the
> equipment meets the standards required for IFR flight, the stuff should be
> acceptable.
>
> What do you feel is required?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
> I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
> TSOs have been issued.
>
> Kevin Horton
>
> - The AeroElectric-List Email Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> page,
> Photoshare, and much much more:
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
> - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -
> the Web Forums!
> http://forums.matronics.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) |
1/6/2007
Hello Bill, You wrote: ".....skip........a contact visual approach in
VMC....skip...."
In order to keep our semantics correct a contact approach and a visual
approach are two different approaches used in different circumstances. See
the AIM for a description of each -- very easy to confuse the two.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________
From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205
(WAAS)
Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR
rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified
GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a
military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away
with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to
violate the spirit of the thing, somehow ;-)
-Bill B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Good Morning Bob,
Now I am getting way, way, out of my area.
However!
Meeting the TSO standards and being certified by the FAA as meeting those
standards are two different things.
Fortunately for us, the FAA rules and regulations are permissive, not
restrictive. If something is not specifically prohibited, we can do it. If what
we
do causes a problem that the FAA thinks shouldn't have occurred, they can go
after us via the careless and reckless provisions of the regulations.
For most Part 135 operations, the radio gear must be FAA certified as
meeting the TSO standards, for the rest of us, all we need to know is that the
manufacturer feels they meet the standards. As I see it, we are not required to
do the testing ourselves. I am not at all up to date on such things, but I do
recall flying many hundreds, if not thousands, of IFR hours using equipment
that was not certified by the FAA as meeting the applicable TSO's but that did
work just fine for our Part 91 functions.
Once again, my disclaimer, I am no longer active in that area and I could
very likely be way off base. Please let me know if that is true!
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/6/2007 9:19:26 A.M. Central Standard Time,
flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com writes:
Bob,
You may be right? But most, if not all, of us lack the test equipment
to 'prove' that a given piece of equipment "meets the standards
required for IFR flight"?!
If the manufacture hasn't gone to the trouble and expense to show
their equipment meets 'standards' how can I? . . . Buying TSO'd
reduces that concern if you have it in the first place.
It's been awhile but I'm pretty sure the 'equipment requirements' for
IFR Flight indicate that certain equipment meet TSO standards?
My $0.02 worth!
Bob in SE Iowa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Horton <khorton01(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 91.205 (WAAS) |
Bob,
I believe that the FAA's intent is that GPS equipment used for IFR
must be TSO approved to either TSO C129, C129A, C145A or C146A.
AC90-94 Guidelines for using Global Positioning System Equipment for
IFR En Route and Terminal Operations and for Nonprecision Instrument
Approaches in the U.S. National Airspace System says that GPS
equipment for use in the US National Airspace System should in
installed in accordance with AC20-138, which requires TSO'd GPS
receivers. I'll be the first to admit that an AC is not a
regulation, but if you want to propose an alternate means of
compliance you need to get the FAA to agree to it. I am not a
lawyer, so I won't attempt to define the clear regulatory trail that
would require TSO's GPS receivers.
I wish the regs were clearer in this area. You shouldn't need to
hire a lawyer to figure out what the regulatory requirements are.
The situation in Canada is somewhat clearer. There is a notice in
the Canada Air Pilot (the document that contains all the publicly
available instrument approach procedures) which clearly states that
TSO'd equipment is required to fly GPS approaches. This notice is
reprinted in Aeronautical Information Circular 27/05 in the Canadian
Aeronautical Information Manual.
http://tinyurl.com/y442ct
Kevin Horton
On 6 Jan 2007, at 09:52, BobsV35B(at)aol.com wrote:
> Good Morning Kevin,
>
> I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is
> a TSO required for operations of a home built aircraft?
>
> It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft.
>
> The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight
> appears to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator
> determines that the equipment meets the standards required for IFR
> flight, the stuff should be acceptable.
>
> What do you feel is required?
>
> Happy Skies,
>
> Old Bob
> AKA
> Bob Siegfried
> Ancient Aviator
> Stearman N3977A
> Brookeridge Air Park LL22
> Downers Grove, IL 60516
> 630 985-8503
>
> In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
> khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
> I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
> TSOs have been issued.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rodney smith <rodsmith52(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Is Marker Beacon needed with WAAS equipped GPS? |
While on the topic of GPS and IFR regulations. I am planning on equipping my Bearhawk
with a Garmin 480. For those not familiar, it contains a comm, a WAAS GPS
certified for precision GPS approaches, VOR/ ILS, and channeling for a remote
transponder box. My question is since with its GPS engine it can locate the
approach fixes that are normally located with a marker beacon receiver and even
will sound an audible alarm when you reach them, do I still need to install
a marker beacon receiver to be legal?
Thanks,
Rod Smith
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BobsV35B(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Is Marker Beacon needed with WAAS equipped GPS? |
Good Afternoon rodsmith52,
I received a completely blank message from you via the AeroElectric list,
but based on the subject matter, I would assume you wish to discuss the need for
a marker beacon receiver.
The answer to your question is: It All Depends!
A marker beacon receiver is only required if you wish to execute an approach
which specifies the need for one and when there is no acceptable and usable
substitute.
If you are planning to make a flight that only requires a GPS approved to
C146a standards, there is no requirement for a marker beacon receiver. If you
want to shoot an ILS, it is conceivable that a marker beacon receiver may be
required. However, most points that are designated by a marker re also
designated by some other method. Occasionally it will be an NDB. Sometimes RADAR
positioning will suffice. Other times there may be a radial off of a VOR that
can legally be used. In the event that the alternative for the marker is a DME
distance or a bearing to or from an NDB, an IFR approved GPS may be
substituted. If you will give me an example of an approach you wish to execute,
I
would be happy to give you my opinion of whether or not a marker beacon would
be
required and whether or not there are substitutions available.
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Fisher" <sonex76(at)velocity.net> |
Hello,
I am wiring my aircraft per drawing Z-20 for a Jabiru engine
and am having a hard time wrapping my mind around
the wiring of the 2-10 switch. The book says this switch function
is ON-ON-ON. I want the bottom position to have Master OFF;
middle position Master ON and the top position to be Alternator ON.
I am using the OV disconnect relay system, a starter solenoid and
a battery solenoid.
Would someone mind try and explain this switch wiring to me
based on the Z-20 drawing.. Please!!
Thanks in advance..
Dick Fisher
sonex76(at)velocity.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated |
voltage regulator failure
>It was an Odyssey pc680 and it's van's 60 amp alternator with the internal
>voltage regulator. I don't know for sure the make but many say it's a
>nippondenso (ND). I didn't take it off yet.
>
>Yes, the voltage is monitored all the time by my EIS & EFIS and there's a
>pretty tight voltage range which would trigger an "alarm" if it went out
>of range. It never did prior to just oughtright dropping a couple of
>volts permanently. But it was my original battery which I abused
>throughout the build process and I'm not the least bit surprised. I got
>my 4 years money's worth as far as the battery goes....
Okay, so this battery's failure is not necessarily attributable
to any operating conditions in the airplane.
>
>No, I didn't actively track the battery's voltage becuase I ALWAYS left it
>on a trickle charger while hangared at the home airport and it never gave
>me any grief during long trips like to Oshkosh plus the alarm range was
>pretty tight on the EFIS (I guess you could say that's gross tracking to
>some extent). My bus voltage once the engine is running has always been
>about 14.2 volts plus or minus .1
That's about what I would expect.
>
>I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator so
>this seamed to have validated that statement. For sure though, from my
>observations, the battery appeared to go bad first then 2 hours later
>after a new battery was installed the regulator seems to have failed.
I'm skeptical of such claims. Consider how many batteries
you've replaced in cars without having to replace the alternator
too.
I've "killed" a few alternators in various test situations
but all failures involved either loss of cooling or mechanical
issues such as bearing or shear-shaft failures.
The way to "test" a weak-battery-kills-alternators hypothesis is
to separate the two components and then craft a test plan designed
to kill an alternator. In other words, if I had a brand new
alternator and a charter to damage it in some way on the test
stand, what kinds of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
device to bring about its untimely demise?
Once such a test plan is devised, then deduce how battery
behavior mimics any of the abuses you've crafted for the
purpose of killing an alternator.
I'd be interested in anyone's ideas as to how you might go
about it. Alternators are inherently self current limiting.
Given sufficient cooling air, you cannot "overload" one to
destruction. Alternator diodes are robust and will withstand
reverse voltage transients many times greater than system voltage.
It's the regulators that are most vulnerable to a load-dump
event and that's been demonstrated by several builders using
Van's (and perhaps other) alternators combined with b-lead
contactor controls.
I'm not suggesting that battery condition might not be a bit-player
in a scenario that's hard on alternators. For example:
I can see how the "weak battery" thing might have morphed into
a cause/effect for alternator failure where someone knows that
having a battery be disconnected from the alternator at the same
time all loads are removed causes a potentially hazardous
over-shoot. One might deduce that a "weak" battery has
lost its ability to mitigate a load-dump events thereby
placing the alternator at-risk.
If this hypothesis were in play for your situation, the alternator
seems most likely to have failed while the "weak" battery was
in place. Certainly having a "strong" new battery in place totally
eliminates the risk for hazardous transients during ordinary
system load reductions.
This could be hypothetically thrashed for days but without very
specific test data, we'll never know how your tandem failures
may or may not have been related.
> My current battery voltage is really good, even after the voltage
> regulator failure stress on the battery.
The momentary abuses heaped on your battery were of limited duration
and will have the net effect of reducing your battery's service
life by some small fraction. By the way, once your alternator is
turned ON after engine start, are you able to turn it OFF from
the pilot's controls while the engine is running?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Broken and Garbled" (Additional data) |
I think it's one of those once-in-a-blue-moon or perhaps in-our-fondest-wishes
kinds of advertising. We see it a lot when manufacturers talk about the wattage
of their audio systems. The $low$ hand-helds have transmitters that run in the
100 mW range. Some $high$ transceivers for the $licensed$ service may be
allowed
to run more . . . I haven't dug out the rules on this.
But consider the 100 mW case by punching numbers into a path loss calculator
at:
http://tinyurl.com/y9tte2
Use 0.1 watts, 14 km (about 10 mi) and 450 Mhz.
Use 0, 0 and -3 for transmit and receive antenna values
Use 0 for "other losses". Hit Calculate.
We see that this gives us a 4 microvolt signal at the
receiver end. A really good receiver can be barely
useful at about 1/10th this value or 0.4 microvolts.
This means that assuming the receivers in these $20 handhelds
are capable of 0.4 microvolt performance, we can tolerate
20 db of "other" losses over a 10 mi course and still communicate.
It would be interesting to evaluate these radios in the lab
but the ones I have don't have coax connectors where the antennas
go such that one might easily evaluate real transmitter power output
and real receiver performance. Given the less-than-ideal
antennas and poor probability that the power and sensitivity
numbers are equal to the example cited, I doubt that the
radios I've been using can be expected to produce useful
performance at the "advertised" ranges.
One can purchase much more expensive radios that operate
in this service. It's reasonable to expect some
improvements in performance, but it's still difficult to minimize
"other" losses in the communications path.
Most of the radios I've purchased were the $lowest$ I could
find because my path-lengths of interest ran from a few feet
to perhaps 50 yards. I often use them to communicate with
a technician in the cockpit while I'm working in the "hell-hole"
of an airplane. The poorest performing was good for perhaps
100 yards between vehicles on the highway and the last set
I bought are much better. They are usable out to 1 mile if
the two cars can see each other.
Idealized conditions are generally used when you're being
seduced into buying the critters. Real-world performance
and non-idealized path loss conditions are an all together
different matter.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The D-25 essential buss diode |
>
>
>Thanks, Bob...That answers my confusion about the E-buss, but I am
>still stuck on the Z-19 diodes that bring both batteries power into the
>fuel pump and ECU...There are two ins and one out and I don't understand
>how to tell which is which....??
>
>Thanks,
>Bill B
Okay. The gozintas for the diode pairs in Z-19 are the two AC
terminals adjacent to the (+) gozouta terminal. This means
you use the 90-degree twisted terminal for out. Ignore the (-)
terminal opposite the (+) terminal and use the adjacent
AC terminals for interchangeable inputs.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
>Hello,
>
>I am wiring my aircraft per drawing Z-20 for a Jabiru engine
>and am having a hard time wrapping my mind around
>the wiring of the 2-10 switch. The book says this switch function
>is ON-ON-ON. I want the bottom position to have Master OFF;
>middle position Master ON and the top position to be Alternator ON.
>I am using the OV disconnect relay system, a starter solenoid and
>a battery solenoid.
>Would someone mind try and explain this switch wiring to me
>based on the Z-20 drawing.. Please!!
This is explained in detail in Chapter 11 of the 'Connection.
There is also some information on the 2-10 switch operation
and terminal numbering conventions in Appendix Z figure
at the bottom of Page Z-9 and Note 15 on page Z-10.
If you study the wiring of the DC Power Master switch
in Z-20 (or any other z-figures) you'll see that when
the switch is in full down position (as drawn) there is
no pathway for either the battery or alternator . . . I.e.
the system is OFF. Now, the switch is designated as
an ON-ON-ON functionality because there are some connections
made through the switch in any of its three positions.
As wired, we do not connect to terminals 3 and 6 which
provide conduction pathway in the lower position of the handle.
With nothing connected to 3 and 6, then the lowest position
of the handle produces a system OFF condition.
In the mid position, terminals 1 and 2 are connected
which closes the battery circuit . . . but terminals 5 and
6 are still connected on the other side of the switch leaving
the alternator OFF. Moving the switch one more step leaves
terminals 1 and 2 connected (battery still on) and connects
terminals 4 and 5 are now connected which adds alternator
operation.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Winterville, NC Seminar date set |
We've just posted a sign-up sheet for a weekend seminar
to be presented in Chapter 1423's facility in Winterville,
North Carolina on March 24/25 of 2007. Details are available at:
http://aeroelectric.com/seminars/Winterville.html
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Broken and Garbled" (Additional data) |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Since I just happen to be in the market for a half-dozen walkie talkies
for a project, is there any concensus on the best, cheap unit....Cobra
MicroTalk? Motorola TalkAbout? Or, are they really all about the same.
I'm buying cheap as after a week, they are a Good-Will donation.
Chuck Jensen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Robert L. Nuckolls, III
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: "Broken and Garbled" (Additional
data)
-->
I think it's one of those once-in-a-blue-moon or perhaps
in-our-fondest-wishes kinds of advertising. We see it a lot when
manufacturers talk about the wattage of their audio systems. The $low$
hand-helds have transmitters that run in the 100 mW range. Some $high$
transceivers for the $licensed$ service may be
allowed
to run more . . . I haven't dug out the rules on this.
But consider the 100 mW case by punching numbers into a path loss
calculator
at:
http://tinyurl.com/y9tte2
Use 0.1 watts, 14 km (about 10 mi) and 450 Mhz.
Use 0, 0 and -3 for transmit and receive antenna values
Use 0 for "other losses". Hit Calculate.
We see that this gives us a 4 microvolt signal at the
receiver end. A really good receiver can be barely
useful at about 1/10th this value or 0.4 microvolts.
This means that assuming the receivers in these $20 handhelds are
capable of 0.4 microvolt performance, we can tolerate 20 db of "other"
losses over a 10 mi course and still communicate.
It would be interesting to evaluate these radios in the lab
but the ones I have don't have coax connectors where the antennas go
such that one might easily evaluate real transmitter power output and
real receiver performance. Given the less-than-ideal antennas and poor
probability that the power and sensitivity numbers are equal to the
example cited, I doubt that the radios I've been using can be expected
to produce useful performance at the "advertised" ranges.
One can purchase much more expensive radios that operate
in this service. It's reasonable to expect some
improvements in performance, but it's still difficult to minimize
"other" losses in the communications path.
Most of the radios I've purchased were the $lowest$ I could find because
my path-lengths of interest ran from a few feet to perhaps 50 yards. I
often use them to communicate with a technician in the cockpit while I'm
working in the "hell-hole" of an airplane. The poorest performing was
good for perhaps 100 yards between vehicles on the highway and the last
set I bought are much better. They are usable out to 1 mile if the two
cars can see each other.
Idealized conditions are generally used when you're being seduced into
buying the critters. Real-world performance and non-idealized path loss
conditions are an all together different matter.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <lehmans(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Alternator Failure |
Bob N. wrote:
"In other words, if I had a brand new
alternator and a charter to damage it in some way on the test
stand, what kinds of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
device to bring about its untimely demise?"
Just for grins, here's a simple example applicable to the GM CS130 alternator (IR).
It is physically small but rated at 105 AMPS. It runs very hot at 40 AMPS
(Olds 98 'normal' load!) resulting in short diode life (without load and cooling
mods plus up-rated diodes). My re-built spare (kept in the trunk) came
with a tag attached to the alternator, "CAUTION: this alternator is NOT a battery
charger". In other words, do not "jump start" the vehicle because normal
running load plus a discharged battery will likely fail this alternator.
P.S. I have never come across this issue with non-GM cars. I have two 20+ year
Toyotas with original ND alternators (brushes replaced once).
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Fisher" <sonex76(at)velocity.net> |
Bob,
Thank you very much for the clear and concise answer
to my questions on the 2-10 switch. I am now able to
understand the functionality as depicted in your drawing.
Dick Fisher
sonex76(at)velocity.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated |
voltage regulator failure
For years I was skeptical too that a weak battery would hasten
alternator death. However eventually I developed a few thoughts on why
there may be some truth to this in automobiles.
1. Higher longer charging does tend to make the alternator run hotter
and some internal VR alternators are not well cooled. Any vehicle that
is started with jumper cables is about to ask for a serious effort from
its charging system.
2. Installing a new but partly charged battery may stress the alternator
even higher than ever as it charges the battery at max current for an
extended period. An old alternator just may not be up to the effort.
Maybe the brushes are worn or maybe the solid state devices get hotter
than they have for awhile. Certainly the cooling of old greasy/dirty
components is not as good as on a clean new unit. I'm not sure that a
test stand is going to successfully imitate the service environment that
I'm thinking of. This might explain death shortly after the new battery
is installed though.
3. Weak "maintenance free" batteries are sometimes low on electrolyte. I
think that further reduces their capacity to absorb any excess voltage
or current and might lead to more voltage excursions. Most people never
pop the caps off automobile batteries any more as it is often not
obvious how to do it, or that it can be done. It seems that my little
(8AH) AGM batteries will accept very little current initially when fully
discharged.
4. As a WAG another contribution might be abnormal operation while
fooling around with a weak battery. If I leave the ignition/key on with
my ND IR alternator on my aircraft without starting the engine, the
alternator does draw several amps of field current and it will heat up
quite noticeably with no cooling airflow.
Anyway my personal rule now is to change out any suspicious battery with
a new FULLY charged unit and I can sometimes send the vehicle to the
wreckers with the original alternator. I do run weak batteries in my
tractor but that has an external homemade VR that hangs out in the
breeze (like the alternator) and everything runs very very cool ;)
Ken
>> SNIP>
>> I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator
>> so this seamed to have validated that statement. For sure though,
>> from my observations, the battery appeared to go bad first then 2
>> hours later after a new battery was installed the regulator seems to
>> have failed.
>
>
> I'm skeptical of such claims. Consider how many batteries
> you've replaced in cars without having to replace the alternator
> too.
>
> I've "killed" a few alternators in various test situations
> but all failures involved either loss of cooling or mechanical
> issues such as bearing or shear-shaft failures.
>
> The way to "test" a weak-battery-kills-alternators hypothesis is
> to separate the two components and then craft a test plan designed
> to kill an alternator. In other words, if I had a brand new
> alternator and a charter to damage it in some way on the test
> stand, what kinds of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
> device to bring about its untimely demise?
>
> Once such a test plan is devised, then deduce how battery
> behavior mimics any of the abuses you've crafted for the
> purpose of killing an alternator.
>
> I'd be interested in anyone's ideas as to how you might go
> about it. Alternators are inherently self current limiting.
> Given sufficient cooling air, you cannot "overload" one to
> destruction. Alternator diodes are robust and will withstand
> reverse voltage transients many times greater than system voltage.
> It's the regulators that are most vulnerable to a load-dump
> event and that's been demonstrated by several builders using
> Van's (and perhaps other) alternators combined with b-lead
> contactor controls.
>
> I'm not suggesting that battery condition might not be a bit-player
> in a scenario that's hard on alternators. For example:
> I can see how the "weak battery" thing might have morphed into
> a cause/effect for alternator failure where someone knows that
> having a battery be disconnected from the alternator at the same
> time all loads are removed causes a potentially hazardous
> over-shoot. One might deduce that a "weak" battery has
> lost its ability to mitigate a load-dump events thereby
> placing the alternator at-risk.
>
> If this hypothesis were in play for your situation, the alternator
> seems most likely to have failed while the "weak" battery was
> in place. Certainly having a "strong" new battery in place totally
> eliminates the risk for hazardous transients during ordinary
> system load reductions.
>
> This could be hypothetically thrashed for days but without very
> specific test data, we'll never know how your tandem failures
> may or may not have been related.
>
>
>> My current battery voltage is really good, even after the voltage
>> regulator failure stress on the battery.
>
>
> The momentary abuses heaped on your battery were of limited duration
> and will have the net effect of reducing your battery's service
> life by some small fraction. By the way, once your alternator is
> turned ON after engine start, are you able to turn it OFF from
> the pilot's controls while the engine is running?
>
> Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator Failure |
>
>Bob N. wrote:
> "In other words, if I had a brand new
> alternator and a charter to damage it in some way on the test
> stand, what kinds of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
> device to bring about its untimely demise?"
>
>Just for grins, here's a simple example applicable to the GM CS130
>alternator (IR). It is physically small but rated at 105 AMPS. It runs
>very hot at 40 AMPS (Olds 98 'normal' load!) resulting in short diode life
>(without load and cooling mods plus up-rated diodes). My re-built spare
>(kept in the trunk) came with a tag attached to the alternator, "CAUTION:
>this alternator is NOT a battery charger". In other words, do not "jump
>start" the vehicle because normal running load plus a discharged battery
>will likely fail this alternator.
Hmmmm . . . how often do you get a manufacturer to
ADMIT his product isn't designed to live in the real
world in which it is expected to function? As you
noted early on, this alternator was probably starved
for cooling and the folks that sold it to you were
admitting that you couldn't expect it to survive a
situation that should be and is a piece of cake for
other systems.
>P.S. I have never come across this issue with non-GM cars. I have two 20+
>year Toyotas with original ND alternators (brushes replaced once).
One of the tests we have to do when installing
an new alternator on an airplane is to accomplish
extended best-angle climbs with the alternator loaded
to it's nameplate rating. We then extrapolate that
data to worst case, hot day situations to deduce
whether or not the alternator is adequately cooled.
For a manufacturer to offer the caveat you cited
does not speak well of their sense of responsibility
as engineers.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: $low$ handi-talkies |
>
>Since I just happen to be in the market for a half-dozen walkie talkies
>for a project, is there any concensus on the best, cheap unit....Cobra
>MicroTalk? Motorola TalkAbout? Or, are they really all about the same.
>I'm buying cheap as after a week, they are a Good-Will donation.
As long as you're not expecting them to function at
more than a fraction of advertised range, go for
the $low$ versions. Buy one pair and try them out
in the most demanding situation you can anticipate
before you buy the rest.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternator failures |
>
>For years I was skeptical too that a weak battery would hasten alternator
>death. However eventually I developed a few thoughts on why there may be
>some truth to this in automobiles.
>
>1. Higher longer charging does tend to make the alternator run hotter and
>some internal VR alternators are not well cooled. Any vehicle that is
>started with jumper cables is about to ask for a serious effort from its
>charging system.
So after getting the car started. Let it stand at
curb idle for ten minutes or so with minimal accessories
turned on. This little pre-charge should have the
battery boosted beyond it's max-recharge current
draw.
>2. Installing a new but partly charged battery may stress the alternator
>even higher than ever as it charges the battery at max current for an
>extended period. An old alternator just may not be up to the effort. Maybe
>the brushes are worn or maybe the solid state devices get hotter than they
>have for awhile. Certainly the cooling of old greasy/dirty components is
>not as good as on a clean new unit. I'm not sure that a test stand is
>going to successfully imitate the service environment that I'm thinking
>of. This might explain death shortly after the new battery is installed though.
>
>3. Weak "maintenance free" batteries are sometimes low on electrolyte. I
>think that further reduces their capacity to absorb any excess voltage or
>current and might lead to more voltage excursions. Most people never pop
>the caps off automobile batteries any more as it is often not obvious how
>to do it, or that it can be done. It seems that my little (8AH) AGM
>batteries will accept very little current initially when fully discharged.
An RG battery is sealed and should not be opened over
the service life of the battery. The do-called "maintenance
free" he's referring to is a class of vented, flooded battery
which will run without service as long as they are not
abused. But this is a separate issue not related to the
thread and generally not applicable since I doubt that
anyone would put such a battery in their airplane.
>4. As a WAG another contribution might be abnormal operation while fooling
>around with a weak battery. If I leave the ignition/key on with my ND IR
>alternator on my aircraft without starting the engine, the alternator does
>draw several amps of field current and it will heat up quite noticeably
>with no cooling airflow.
Yup. All externally regulated alternators will do this.
They've been commanded by a regulator (full field output
voltage) to raise the bus voltage will the shaft is not
turning. Hence, full field current of about 3A x 12v dissipates
36 watts of unproductive heat within the machine. Some
modern IR alternators sense the ac voltage from the
stator windings and won't allow the regulator to come alive
until it senses that the shaft is turning. Apparently the
one you have does not have this feature. But when
the field is fully excited this 36 watt dissipation
is a fraction of that which the alternator would dump
under full load.
Consider a 60A machine putting out 14V (840 watts)
running about 75% efficient. This means that
at full load it rejects about 280 watts of heat.
>Anyway my personal rule now is to change out any suspicious battery with a
>new FULLY charged unit and I can sometimes send the vehicle to the
>wreckers with the original alternator. I do run weak batteries in my
>tractor but that has an external homemade VR that hangs out in the breeze
>(like the alternator) and everything runs very very cool ;)
You've suggested that IR alternators are, as a class of product,
more vulnerable to cooling starvation than ER alternators. I have
no personal observations that might support this idea. All
alternators are energy conversion devices that run at less than
100% efficiency. This means that when operated at name-plate rated
loads, they will have some heat to reject. An alternator cannot
be loaded to more than a few percent above name plate rating.
I.e. unlike generators, you cannot get the machine to dump
out say 2x rated load. They're magnetically current limited
so it all comes down to cooling. The smaller and more compact
the alternator, the more difficult it is to get air to flow
to vital areas . . . but this is still an INSTALLATION issue
and not one we should have to address by how we install
or deal with dead batteries.
It may well be that many poorly installed alternators
have been saved from early demise by any number of hat-dances
performed to various tunes. But in the final analysis,
you cannot expect ANY alternator to function to nameplate
ratings under all conditions if you don't provide for
adequate cooling.
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | RE: $low$ handi-talkies |
>
>Good advice Bob, but Larry McDonald, off-line, suggested even better.
>He suggested that I spend a few dollars more to get a little better
>quality units, then donate them to the troops in Afhganistan and Iraq
>when I'm done--necessary it seems since we are buying so many billion
>dollar bombers and nuclear submarines that we can't afford to provide
>walkie talkies to our troops to keep them safe. Excellent idea and
>consider it done.
Wasn't aware of that. Do you have an address for a "pipe"
that would put any such donations in the right hands?
Bob . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Narco ADF with RG-62 Antenna |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Hey Listers,
My airplane has a Narco 141 ADF (which works only marginally). I was
under the panel inspecting things and noticed that it's wired with RG-62
coax. I didn't recognize that number so I looked it up. I found that
it's 93ohm impedance cable. Does anybody know if that's the right stuff
for this ADF? I had thought 50ohm was the defacto standard for avionics.
I am wondering if having the wrong cable might be causing the substandard
performance..
Other question.. Does anyone have a diagnostic manual or install manual
for this ADF?
Regards,
Matt-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Narco ADF with RG-62 Antenna |
>
>Hey Listers,
>
>My airplane has a Narco 141 ADF (which works only marginally). I was
>under the panel inspecting things and noticed that it's wired with RG-62
>coax. I didn't recognize that number so I looked it up. I found that
>it's 93ohm impedance cable. Does anybody know if that's the right stuff
>for this ADF? I had thought 50ohm was the defacto standard for avionics.
>I am wondering if having the wrong cable might be causing the substandard
>performance..
>
>Other question.. Does anyone have a diagnostic manual or install manual
>for this ADF?
Yeah, that's the right stuff. It's a special lo-capacity
coax used in low frequency radio receivers. Not easy to find
and not fun to work with either as I recall but it's been
many moons.
The only data I have on it is the pinout diagrams I've published
at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/Narco_140-141_ADF.pdf
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Narco ADF with RG-62 Antenna |
| From: | "Matt Prather" <mprather(at)spro.net> |
Okee doke.. The pinout is interesting, but doesn't have everything I was
looking for.
Thanks anyway (times two).
Matt-
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Hey Listers,
>>
>>My airplane has a Narco 141 ADF (which works only marginally). I was
>>under the panel inspecting things and noticed that it's wired with RG-62
>>coax. I didn't recognize that number so I looked it up. I found that
>>it's 93ohm impedance cable. Does anybody know if that's the right stuff
>>for this ADF? I had thought 50ohm was the defacto standard for avionics.
>>I am wondering if having the wrong cable might be causing the substandard
>>performance..
>>
>>Other question.. Does anyone have a diagnostic manual or install manual
>>for this ADF?
>
> Yeah, that's the right stuff. It's a special lo-capacity
> coax used in low frequency radio receivers. Not easy to find
> and not fun to work with either as I recall but it's been
> many moons.
>
> The only data I have on it is the pinout diagrams I've published
> at:
>
> http://www.aeroelectric.com/Installation_Data/Narco_140-141_ADF.pdf
>
> Bob . . .
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "r falstad" <bobair8(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Three Fat Wires on Starter Contactor Bolt: How? |
Folks,
I'm building a GlaStar with the battery behind the baggage compartment.
I've run (2) 2 AWG cables from the firewall to the battery area. I
intend to terminate the (8 AWG) "B" alternator lead on the battery side
of the starter contactor as it is shown on Z-11. I also want to run
another 8 AWG from the same starter contactor bolt to the fuse panel to
avoid running another fat wire all the way to the back.
But the starter contactor bolt isn't long enough to capture three lugs
with lock washer and nut. I could gain some room by putting a thinner
nut next to the contactor body but I'm afraid to start wrenching on that
nut for fear of screwing up the contactor internals. I have two
possible approaches and am looking for comments or alternatives.
First, crimp the two 8 AWG wires into a single lug (I have a good
crimper for big lugs and will fill the cavity with solder). The space
on the contactor bolt will be tight but should be feasible. I could
gain even more room by using a metal stop nut and eliminating the lock
washer. Second, fabricate a short buss bar out of heavy gauge brass and
attach that to the contactor bolt and fasten the three lugs to the buss
bar. My concern here is properly insulating and securing the buss bar.
Any shorts here and I'd have a flying arc welder under my cowling.
Would that dippable plastic coating material (Plasti-Kote?) work? How
about the fuseable silicon tape?
(I've already used an uninsulated piece of brass to tie my ammeter shunt
into the negative side. The brass bolt through the "forest-of-tabs"
also captures the ground strap to the engine crankcase and one end of
the brass bar. The ammeter shunt is attached to the other end of the
brass bar and my 2 AWG negative return cable is attached to the other
end of the ammeter shunt.)
Unrelated question: Is Ultra Tef-Gel conductive? I've been using it on
some electrical connections on the assumption that it is conductive. If
it isn't, I've got some rework to do.
Best regards,
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Three Fat Wires on Starter Contactor Bolt: How? |
>Folks,
>
>I'm building a GlaStar with the battery behind the baggage
>compartment. I've run (2) 2 AWG cables from the firewall to the battery
>area. I intend to terminate the (8 AWG) "B" alternator lead on the
>battery side of the starter contactor as it is shown on Z-11. I also want
>to run another 8 AWG from the same starter contactor bolt to the fuse
>panel to avoid running another fat wire all the way to the back.
>
>But the starter contactor bolt isn't long enough to capture three lugs
>with lock washer and nut. I could gain some room by putting a thinner nut
>next to the contactor body but I'm afraid to start wrenching on that nut
>for fear of screwing up the contactor internals. I have two possible
>approaches and am looking for comments or alternatives.
>
>First, crimp the two 8 AWG wires into a single lug (I have a good crimper
>for big lugs and will fill the cavity with solder). The space on the
>contactor bolt will be tight but should be feasible. I could gain even
>more room by using a metal stop nut and eliminating the lock
>washer. Second, fabricate a short buss bar out of heavy gauge brass and
>attach that to the contactor bolt and fasten the three lugs to the buss
>bar. My concern here is properly insulating and securing the buss
>bar. Any shorts here and I'd have a flying arc welder under my
>cowling. Would that dippable plastic coating material (Plasti-Kote?)
>work? How about the fuseable silicon tape?
>
>(I've already used an uninsulated piece of brass to tie my ammeter shunt
>into the negative side. The brass bolt through the "forest-of-tabs" also
>captures the ground strap to the engine crankcase and one end of the brass
>bar. The ammeter shunt is attached to the other end of the brass bar and
>my 2 AWG negative return cable is attached to the other end of the ammeter
>shunt.)
>
>Unrelated question: Is Ultra Tef-Gel conductive? I've been using it on
>some electrical connections on the assumption that it is conductive. If
>it isn't, I've got some rework to do.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Bob
>
>
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Three Fat Wires on Starter Contactor Bolt: How? |
>Folks,
>
>I'm building a GlaStar with the battery behind the baggage
>compartment. I've run (2) 2 AWG cables from the firewall to the battery
>area. I intend to terminate the (8 AWG) "B" alternator lead on the
>battery side of the starter contactor as it is shown on Z-11. I also want
>to run another 8 AWG from the same starter contactor bolt to the fuse
>panel to avoid running another fat wire all the way to the back.
>
>But the starter contactor bolt isn't long enough to capture three lugs
>with lock washer and nut. I could gain some room by putting a thinner nut
>next to the contactor body but I'm afraid to start wrenching on that nut
>for fear of screwing up the contactor internals. I have two possible
>approaches and am looking for comments or alternatives.
>
>First, crimp the two 8 AWG wires into a single lug (I have a good crimper
>for big lugs and will fill the cavity with solder).
that will work.
> The space on the contactor bolt will be tight but should be feasible. I
> could gain even more room by using a metal stop nut and eliminating the
> lock washer. Second, fabricate a short buss bar out of heavy gauge brass
> and attach that to the contactor bolt and fasten the three lugs to the
> buss bar.
that probably works better.
> My concern here is properly insulating and securing the buss bar. Any
> shorts here and I'd have a flying arc welder under my cowling. Would
> that dippable plastic coating material (Plasti-Kote?) work? How about
> the fuseable silicon tape?
See pictures at:
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Firewall_Ckt_Protection.jpg
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Wiring_Technique/Contactor_Interconnect/Contactor_Strap_3.jpg
This is the engine side of firewall on Model 36 Bonanza. LOTS
of exposed, high current conductors. What's going go get into them?
You've got a propeller spinning up front that will make hamburger out
of you in a heartbeat . . . but we don't put wire cages around them.
It's perfectly okay to have "open hazards" as long as you've
done the necessary homework to keep things from falling into them.
>
>(I've already used an uninsulated piece of brass to tie my ammeter shunt
>into the negative side. The brass bolt through the "forest-of-tabs" also
>captures the ground strap to the engine crankcase and one end of the brass
>bar. The ammeter shunt is attached to the other end of the brass bar and
>my 2 AWG negative return cable is attached to the other end of the ammeter
>shunt.)
>
>Unrelated question: Is Ultra Tef-Gel conductive? I've been using it on
>some electrical connections on the assumption that it is conductive. If
>it isn't, I've got some rework to do.
No, it's an anti-seize compound and not conductive. However, in
a properly bolted or crimped joint, compression forces in the
metal-to-metal joints would extrude any Tef-Gel out of the joint.
Don't worry about it.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/8/2006
Hello Bret, You quote GRT as writing: "The new RAIM-equipped version
provides integrity
monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR GPS TSO
C129 and C146."
This sounds like some subtle weasel wording to me. A piece of equipment
either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked TSO compliant or it is
not TSO'd.
The manufacturer does not get to cherry pick certain standards within the
TSO, or its references, just meet certain standards, and then mark the
equipment as TSO'd.
Most manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of obtaining TSO
approval for a piece of equipment are very eager to make that approval and
marking very evident to any prospective purchaser.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
On 5 Jan 2007, at 22:05, Bret Smith wrote:
>
>
> See http://www.grtavionics.com/documents/Horizon%20System%20Flyer.pdf
>
> "The addition of the internal GPS receiver eliminates the need for an
> external
> GPS, or may be used as a backup to your primary GPS. Available in two
> versions. The standard WAAS GPS module is perfect for VFR use, or
> as backup
> to an external GPS. The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity
> monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR
> GPS
> TSO C129 and C146."
>
> Standard WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $450
> RAIM-Equipped WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $750
>
>
> Bret Smith
> RV-9A (91314)
> Mineral Bluff, GA
> www.FlightInnovations.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | More Contactor - Newbie questions |
Hello,
I'm sorry to be asking such basic questions, but I am still confused
about the use of contactors and relays. I've been reading Bob's book,
but I'm not always sure how to interpret the schematics.
In terms of the battery contactor, I know the hot lead goes from the
battery to the large post, and that the "output" side (leading to the
starter) is not engaged until I flip, or depress, the starter switch.
But how does the 8AWG wire that connects to the main bus from the
contactor's"small" terminal become "hot?" Is it always hot? I see a
switch for "turning on the main bus" but how does that work? Doesn't
the switch need to be hot in order to turn on the current to the main
bus from the battery contactor?
Also, in the back of the book there is a schematic for connecting a
ground power plug (Piper style). A contactor is shown here also. Why
do I need one here, and in a similar vein, wouldn't I need a powered
switch to turn it "on" to allow current to pass through it? What would
activate the contactor when I plugged in the external power. And would
this be a "continuous duty" contactor or more like a starter contactor?
Finally, on two batteries. Is there any reason two batteries could not
be connected in parallel, without using another contactor, or another
switch? Why would that kind of setup not give me redundancy if one of
the two batteries were to perish while flying? I'm not challenging
anything in the book here - I just don't understand it.
I've learned a ton in the two weeks I've been reading the book - but I'm
just starting to learn the language.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
"A piece of equipment either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked
TSO compliant or it is not TSO'd."
True, but not necessarily the point...
In some instances the regs require that a piece of equipment MUST MEET TSO
STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders.
In other instances the equipment MUST BE TSO'd. This is the case with IFR
GPS units.
You mentioned, "...manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of
obtaining TSO approval for a piece of equipment..."
If simply meeting the TSO requirements is adequate, why should a
manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Monday, January 8, 2007 10:48 AM
smithhb(at)tds.net
Subject: AeroElectric-List: GRT GPS TSO
1/8/2006
Hello Bret, You quote GRT as writing: "The new RAIM-equipped version
provides integrity
monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR GPS TSO
C129 and C146."
This sounds like some subtle weasel wording to me. A piece of equipment
either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked TSO compliant or it is
not TSO'd.
The manufacturer does not get to cherry pick certain standards within the
TSO, or its references, just meet certain standards, and then mark the
equipment as TSO'd.
Most manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of obtaining TSO
approval for a piece of equipment are very eager to make that approval and
marking very evident to any prospective purchaser.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
On 5 Jan 2007, at 22:05, Bret Smith wrote:
>
>
> See http://www.grtavionics.com/documents/Horizon%20System%20Flyer.pdf
>
> "The addition of the internal GPS receiver eliminates the need for an
> external
> GPS, or may be used as a backup to your primary GPS. Available in two
> versions. The standard WAAS GPS module is perfect for VFR use, or
> as backup
> to an external GPS. The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity
> monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR
> GPS
> TSO C129 and C146."
>
> Standard WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $450
> RAIM-Equipped WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $750
>
>
> Bret Smith
> RV-9A (91314)
> Mineral Bluff, GA
> www.FlightInnovations.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/8/2007
Hello Old Bob, You wrote: "I am definitely stepping out from my area of
expertise here, but is a TSO required for operations of a home built
aircraft?"
I believe that a narrow legalistic response to your question is "No, because
there are no published certification standards that ABEA's (Amateur Built
Experimental Aircraft) are required to meet."
But in a real world practical sense there are some operations that ABEA's
participate in that require them to interface with other aircraft or
facilities and those operations require compatibility with published
standards established for those other entities.
Compatibility could conceivably be achieved by individually creating
equipment equivalent to a published standard, but the practicality of such
creation is, in most cases, very remote.**
In the postings copied below the operation at issue is GPS requirements for
IFR operations. Here is just one extract (others may be found) from chapter
1-1-19 in the current edition of the AIM:
"g. Equipment and Database Requirements
1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems
requires that:
(a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in
class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and"
I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe that an
ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being called to
account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or improper
performance on his part would have a very difficult time convincing the
authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be entirely acceptable
to them.
So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his
aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger him or
others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that goal then his
choice should be clear to him.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
**PS: One notable exception is in the arena of external lighting where some
innovative LED equipment may, in fact, be superior to the TSO requirements.
But proving that superiority and getting an initial airworthiness inspector
of an ABEA to accept the equipment (if he chooses to make it an issue) may
be a problem.
----------------------- COPIED POSTINGS FOLLOW -----------------
From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Good Morning Kevin,
I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is a TSO
required for operations of a home built aircraft?
It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft.
The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight appears
to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator determines that the
equipment meets the standards required for IFR flight, the stuff should be
acceptable.
What do you feel is required?
Happy Skies,
Old Bob
AKA
Bob Siegfried
Ancient Aviator
Stearman N3977A
Brookeridge Air Park LL22
Downers Grove, IL 60516
630 985-8503
In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time,
khorton01(at)rogers.com writes:
I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the
TSOs have been issued.
Kevin Horton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated |
voltage regulator failure
My update. I bought an alternator from Autozone that matched the suzuki/chevrolet
automobile replacement alternator often quoted to be the same as Van's 60
amp internally regulated alternator even though the part number was just slightly
different. I could not tell a difference from the outside though their computer
said 55 amp and not 60 amp. It has a Nippondenso internal fan and a hotline
of 800 228 9672.
In the install manual, it has a CAUTION: A defective or discharged battery can
damage your new alternator.
But the reason my alternator may have failed is that there was one of the feet
on the alternator was cracked clean through. Though it was still rigidly mounted
that had to set up some fun vibration within the alternator itself. Don't
know if that actually was a cause for the battery to fail as opposed to the opposite
hypothesis I was banting about.
Fun stuff. I still have the magic alternator killing odyssey pc680 battery I removed
if anyone has a Van's 60amp alternator they want to test for kill.....
;-)
Next task is to replace the high intensify landing/taxi light bulbs that burned
out when turned on with 18 volts on the bus....
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
>
> For years I was skeptical too that a weak battery would hasten
> alternator death. However eventually I developed a few thoughts on why
> there may be some truth to this in automobiles.
>
> 1. Higher longer charging does tend to make the alternator run hotter
> and some internal VR alternators are not well cooled. Any vehicle that
> is started with jumper cables is about to ask for a serious effort from
> its charging system.
>
> 2. Installing a new but partly charged battery may stress the alternator
> even higher than ever as it charges the battery at max current for an
> extended period. An old alternator just may not be up to the effort.
> Maybe the brushes are worn or maybe the solid state devices get hotter
> than they have for awhile. Certainly the cooling of old greasy/dirty
> components is not as good as on a clean new unit. I'm not sure that a
> test stand is going to successfully imitate the service environment that
> I'm thinking of. This might explain death shortly after the new battery
> is installed though.
>
> 3. Weak "maintenance free" batteries are sometimes low on electrolyte. I
> think that further reduces their capacity to absorb any excess voltage
> or current and might lead to more voltage excursions. Most people never
> pop the caps off automobile batteries any more as it is often not
> obvious how to do it, or that it can be done. It seems that my little
> (8AH) AGM batteries will accept very little current initially when fully
> discharged.
>
> 4. As a WAG another contribution might be abnormal operation while
> fooling around with a weak battery. If I leave the ignition/key on with
> my ND IR alternator on my aircraft without starting the engine, the
> alternator does draw several amps of field current and it will heat up
> quite noticeably with no cooling airflow.
>
> Anyway my personal rule now is to change out any suspicious battery with
> a new FULLY charged unit and I can sometimes send the vehicle to the
> wreckers with the original alternator. I do run weak batteries in my
> tractor but that has an external homemade VR that hangs out in the
> breeze (like the alternator) and everything runs very very cool ;)
>
> Ken
>
> >> SNIP>
> >> I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator
> >> so this seamed to have validated that statement. For sure though,
> >> from my observations, the battery appeared to go bad first then 2
> >> hours later after a new battery was installed the regulator seems to
> >> have failed.
> >
> >
> > I'm skeptical of such claims. Consider how many batteries
> > you've replaced in cars without having to replace the alternator
> > too.
> >
> > I've "killed" a few alternators in various test situations
> > but all failures involved either loss of cooling or mechanical
> > issues such as bearing or shear-shaft failures.
> >
> > The way to "test" a weak-battery-kills-alternators hypothesis is
> > to separate the two components and then craft a test plan designed
> > to kill an alternator. In other words, if I had a brand new
> > alternator and a charter to damage it in some way on the test
> > stand, what kinds of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
> > device to bring about its untimely demise?
> >
> > Once such a test plan is devised, then deduce how battery
> > behavior mimics any of the abuses you've crafted for the
> > purpose of killing an alternator.
> >
> > I'd be interested in anyone's ideas as to how you might go
> > about it. Alternators are inherently self current limiting.
> > Given sufficient cooling air, you cannot "overload" one to
> > destruction. Alternator diodes are robust and will withstand
> > reverse voltage transients many times greater than system voltage.
> > It's the regulators that are most vulnerable to a load-dump
> > event and that's been demonstrated by several builders using
> > Van's (and perhaps other) alternators combined with b-lead
> > contactor controls.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that battery condition might not be a bit-player
> > in a scenario that's hard on alternators. For example:
> > I can see how the "weak battery" thing might have morphed into
> > a cause/effect for alternator failure where someone knows that
> > having a battery be disconnected from the alternator at the same
> > time all loads are removed causes a potentially hazardous
> > over-shoot. One might deduce that a "weak" battery has
> > lost its ability to mitigate a load-dump events thereby
> > placing the alternator at-risk.
> >
> > If this hypothesis were in play for your situation, the alternator
> > seems most likely to have failed while the "weak" battery was
> > in place. Certainly having a "strong" new battery in place totally
> > eliminates the risk for hazardous transients during ordinary
> > system load reductions.
> >
> > This could be hypothetically thrashed for days but without very
> > specific test data, we'll never know how your tandem failures
> > may or may not have been related.
> >
> >
> >> My current battery voltage is really good, even after the voltage
> >> regulator failure stress on the battery.
> >
> >
> > The momentary abuses heaped on your battery were of limited duration
> > and will have the net effect of reducing your battery's service
> > life by some small fraction. By the way, once your alternator is
> > turned ON after engine start, are you able to turn it OFF from
> > the pilot's controls while the engine is running?
> >
> > Bob . . .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
My update. I bought an alternator from Autozone that matched the
suzuki/chevrolet automobile replacement alternator often quoted to be the same
as Van's 60 amp internally regulated alternator even though the part number
was just slightly different. I could not tell a difference from the outside
though their computer said 55 amp and not 60 amp. It has
a Nippondenso internal fan and a hotline of 800 228 9672.
In the install manual, it has a CAUTION: A defective or discharged battery
can damage your new alternator.
But the reason my alternator may have failed is that there was one of
the feet on the alternator was cracked clean through. Though it was
still rigidly mounted that had to set up some fun vibration within the alternator
itself. Don't know if that actually was a cause for the battery to
fail as opposed to the opposite hypothesis I was banting about.
Fun stuff. I still have the magic alternator killing odyssey pc680
battery I removed if anyone has a Van's 60amp alternator they want to test
for kill..... ;-)
Next task is to replace the high intensify landing/taxi light bulbs that burned
out when turned on with 18 volts on the bus....
lucky
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
>
> For years I was skeptical too that a weak
battery would hasten
> alternator death. However eventually I developed
a few thoughts on why
> there may be some truth to this in automobiles.
>
> 1. Higher longer charging does tend to make the alternator
run hotter
> and some internal VR alternators are not well cooled.
Any vehicle that
> is started with jumper cables is about to ask for a
serious effort from
> its charging system.
>
> 2. Installing
a new but partly charged battery may stress the alternator
> even
higher than ever as it charges the battery at max current for an
> extended
period. An old alternator just may not be up to
the ef
fort.
> Maybe the brushes are worn or maybe the solid state devices get
hotter
> than they have for awhile. Certainly the cooling of old greasy/dirty
> components is not as good as on a clean new unit. I'm not sure
that a
> test stand is going to successfully imitate the service environment
that
> I'm thinking of. This might explain death shortly after the
new battery
> is installed though.
>
> 3. Weak "maintenance
free" batteries are sometimes low on electrolyte. I
> think that
further reduces their capacity to absorb any excess voltage
> or current
and might lead to more voltage excursions. Most people never
> pop the
caps off automobile batteries any more as it is often not
> obvious how
to do it, or that it can be done. It seems that my little
> (8AH) AGM
batteries will accept very little current initially when fully
> discharged.
>
> 4. As a WAG another contrib
ution
might be abnormal operation while
> fooling around with a weak battery.
If I leave the ignition/key on with
> my ND IR alternator on my aircraft
without starting the engine, the
> alternator does draw several amps
of field current and it will heat up
> quite noticeably with no cooling
airflow.
>
> Anyway my personal rule now is to change out any suspicious
battery with
> a new FULLY charged unit and I can sometimes send
the vehicle to the
> wreckers with the original alternator. I do run
weak batteries in my
> tractor but that has an external homemade VR that
hangs out in the
> breeze (like the alternator) and everything runs
very very cool ;)
>
> Ken
>
> >> SNIP>
>
>> I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator
> >> so this seamed to have validated that statement. For
sure though,
> >> from my observations
, the
battery appeared to go bad first then 2
> >> hours later after a new
battery was installed the regulator seems to
> >> have failed.
> >
> >
> > I'm skeptical of such claims. Consider
how many batteries
> > you've replaced in cars without having to
replace the alternator
> > too.
> >
> > I've "killed"
a few alternators in various test situations
> > but all failures
involved either loss of cooling or mechanical
> > issues such as
bearing or shear-shaft failures.
> >
> > The way to "test"
a weak-battery-kills-alternators hypothesis is
> > to separate the
two components and then craft a test plan designed
> > to kill an
alternator. In other words, if I had a brand new
> > alternator and
a charter to damage it in some way on the test
> > stand, what kinds
of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
>
; >
device to bring about its untimely demise?
> >
> > Once such
a test plan is devised, then deduce how battery
> > behavior mimics
any of the abuses you've crafted for the
> > purpose of killing an
alternator.
> >
> > I'd be interested in anyone's ideas
as to how you might go
> > about it. Alternators are inherently self
current limiting.
> > Given sufficient cooling air, you cannot "overload"
one to
> > destruction. Alternator diodes are robust and will
withstand
> > reverse voltage transients many times greater than system
voltage.
> > It's the regulators that are most vulnerable to a
load-dump
> > event and that's been demonstrated by several builders
using
> > Van's (and perhaps other) alternators combined with b-lead
> > contactor controls.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting
that battery condition might not be a bit-player
&
gt; > in a scenario that's hard on alternators. For example:
> > I
can see how the "weak battery" thing might have morphed into
> > a
cause/effect for alternator failure where someone knows that
> > having
a battery be disconnected from the alternator at the same
> > time
all loads are removed causes a potentially hazardous
> > over-shoot.
One might deduce that a "weak" battery has
> > lost its ability
to mitigate a load-dump events thereby
> > placing the alternator at-risk.
> >
> > If this hypothesis were in play for your situation,
the alternator
> > seems most likely to have failed while the
"weak" battery was
> > in place. Certainly having a "strong" new
battery in place totally
> > eliminates the risk for hazardous transients
during ordinary
> > system load reductions.
> >
>
> This could be hypothetically thrashed for d
ays bu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | D Fritz <dfritzj(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Keyed push to start switch source?Keyed push to |
start switch source?
...snip-
"there may be a simple key-operated circuit
disconnect you could install between the start button and the starting
circuit. You could conceal this keyed-switch wherever you wanted for
security (under the IP?), but maintain the push-to-start feature...."
I plan to do something similar to this, using a key switch to actuate my battery
contactor (in lieu of a standard master switch). It provides a way to lock
out operation of anything electrical in the plane (including the starter) that's
not on the endurance or battery bus. Does anyone see any problems with this.
(Bracing myself....)
Dan
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ABEA and TSO's |
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe
> that an ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being
> called to account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or
> improper performance on his part would have a very difficult time
> convincing the authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be
> entirely acceptable to them.
Could you please stand back while I prepare to insert my foot in my
mouth, but...
That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial. That just quacks to
much like "ex post facto" law to not be "ex post facto" law. If the
non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in
the wind.
> So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his
> aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger
> him or others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that
> goal then his choice should be clear to him.
If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland(at)novellus.com> |
| Subject: | Another 60A alternator, internally re gulated |
voltage regulator failure
Hmmm. My 60A alternator just failed after 15 hours. It also had a cracked
back bracket. Don't know if that had any effect on the failure, but there
sure seems to be a lot of the 60A ND's failing. Mine had blast tubes for
cooing on both front and back openings.
Randy
7A San Jose, Ca
-----Original Message-----
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net [mailto:luckymacy(at)comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated
voltage regulator failure
My update. I bought an alternator from Autozone that matched the
suzuki/chevrolet automobile replacement alternator often quoted to be the
same as Van's 60 amp internally regulated alternator even though the part
number was just slightly different. I could not tell a difference from the
outside though their computer said 55 amp and not 60 amp. It has a
Nippondenso internal fan and a hotline of 800 228 9672.
In the install manual, it has a CAUTION: A defective or discharged battery
can damage your new alternator.
But the reason my alternator may have failed is that there was one of the
feet on the alternator was cracked clean through. Though it was still
rigidly mounted that had to set up some fun vibration within the alternator
itself. Don't know if that actually was a cause for the battery to fail as
opposed to the opposite hypothesis I was banting about.
Fun stuff. I still have the magic alternator killing odyssey pc680 battery
I removed if anyone has a Van's 60amp alternator they want to test for
kill..... ;-)
Next task is to replace the high intensify landing/taxi light bulbs that
burned out when turned on with 18 volts on the bus....
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
>
> For years I was skeptical too that a weak battery would hasten
> alternator death. However eventually I developed a few thoughts on why
> there may be some truth to this in automobiles.
>
> 1. Higher longer charging does tend to make the alternator run hotter
> and some internal VR alternators are not well cooled. Any vehicle that
> is started with jumper cables is about to ask for a serious effort from
> its charging system.
>
> 2. Installing a new but partly charged battery may stress the alternator
> even higher than ever as it charges the battery at max current for an
> extended period. An old alternator just may not be up to the ef fort.
> Maybe the brushes are worn or maybe the solid state devices get hotter
> than they have for awhile. Certainly the cooling of old greasy/dirty
> components is not as good as on a clean new unit. I'm not sure that a
> test stand is going to successfully imitate the service environment that
> I'm thinking of. This might explain death shortly after the new battery
> is installed though.
>
> 3. Weak "maintenance free" batteries are sometimes low on electrolyte. I
> think that further reduces their capacity to absorb any excess voltage
> or current and might lead to more voltage excursions. Most people never
> pop the caps off automobile batteries any more as it is often not
> obvious how to do it, or that it can be done. It seems that my little
> (8AH) AGM batteries will accept very little current initially when fully
> discharged.
>
> 4. As a WAG another contrib ution might be abnormal operation while
> fooling around with a weak battery. If I leave the ignition/key on with
> my ND IR alternator on my aircraft without starting the engine, the
> alternator does draw several amps of field current and it will heat up
> quite noticeably with no cooling airflow.
>
> Anyway my personal rule now is to change out any suspicious battery with
> a new FULLY charged unit and I can sometimes send the vehicle to the
> wreckers with the original alternator. I do run weak batteries in my
> tractor but that has an external homemade VR that hangs out in the
> breeze (like the alternator) and everything runs very very cool ;)
>
> Ken
>
> >> SNIP>
> >> I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator
> >> so this seamed to have validated that statement. For sure though,
> >> from my observations , the battery appeared to go bad first then 2
> >> hours later after a new battery was installed the regulator seems to
> >> have failed.
> >
> >
> > I'm skeptical of such claims. Consider how many batteries
> > you've replaced in cars without having to replace the alternator
> > too.
> >
> > I've "killed" a few alternators in various test situations
> > but all failures involved either loss of cooling or mechanical
> > issues such as bearing or shear-shaft failures.
> >
> > The way to "test" a weak-battery-kills-alternators hypothesis is
> > to separate the two components and then craft a test plan designed
> > to kill an alternator. In other words, if I had a brand new
> > alternator and a charter to damage it in some way on the test
> > stand, what kinds of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
> ; > device to bring about its untimely demise?
> >
> > Once such a test plan is devised, then deduce how battery
> > behavior mimics any of the abuses you've crafted for the
> > purpose of killing an alternator.
> >
> > I'd be interested in anyone's ideas as to how you might go
> > about it. Alternators are inherently self current limiting.
> > Given sufficient cooling air, you cannot "overload" one to
> > destruction. Alternator diodes are robust and will withstand
> > reverse voltage transients many times greater than system voltage.
> > It's the regulators that are most vulnerable to a load-dump
> > event and that's been demonstrated by several builders using
> > Van's (and perhaps other) alternators combined with b-lead
> > contactor controls.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that battery condition might not be a bit-player
& gt; > in a scenario that's hard on alternators. For example:
> > I can see how the "weak battery" thing might have morphed into
> > a cause/effect for alternator failure where someone knows that
> > having a battery be disconnected from the alternator at the same
> > time all loads are removed causes a potentially hazardous
> > over-shoot. One might deduce that a "weak" battery has
> > lost its ability to mitigate a load-dump events thereby
> > placing the alternator at-risk.
> >
> > If this hypothesis were in play for your situation, the alternator
> > seems most likely to have failed while the "weak" battery was
> > in place. Certainly having a "strong" new battery in place totally
> > eliminates the risk for hazardous transients during ordinary
> > system load reductions.
> >
> > This could be hypothetically thrashed for d ays bu
<http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage |
regulator failure
Lucky, mind sharing the part # on the alternator? It might be the
same as the Geo Metro 55A machine I just installed (I'd have to pull
the cowl to look) but I'd like to know if it had a significant OV
failure mode history.
Thanks,
-Bill B
On 1/8/07, lucky wrote:
>
> My update. I bought an alternator from Autozone that matched the
> suzuki/chevrolet automobile replacement alternator often quoted to be the
> same as Van's 60 amp internally regulated alternator even though the part
> number was just slightly different. I could not tell a difference from the
> outside though their computer said 55 amp and not 60 amp. It has a
> Nippondenso internal fan and a hotline of 800 228 9672.
>
> In the install manual, it has a CAUTION: A defective or discharged battery
> can damage your new alternator.
>
> But the reason my alternator may have failed is that there was one of the
> feet on the alternator was cracked clean through. Though it was still
> rigidly mounted that had to set up some fun vibration within the alternator
> itself. Don't know if that actually was a cause for the battery to fail as
> opposed to the opposite hypothesis I was banting about.
>
> Fun stuff. I still have the magic alternator killing odyssey pc680 battery
> I removed if anyone has a Van's 60amp alternator they want to test for
> kill..... ;-)
>
> Next task is to replace the high intensify landing/taxi light bulbs that
> burned out when turned on with 18 volts on the bus....
>
> lucky
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
>
> >
> > For years I was skeptical too that a weak battery would hasten
> > alternator death. However eventually I developed a few thoughts on why
> > there may be some truth to this in automobiles.
> >
> > 1. Higher longer charging does tend to make the alternator run hotter
> > and some internal VR alternators are not well cooled. Any vehicle that
> > is started with jumper cables is about to ask for a serious effort from
> > its charging system.
> >
> > 2. Installing a new but partly charged battery may stress the alternator
> > even higher than ever as it charges the battery at max current for an
> > extended period. An old alternator just may not be up to the ef fort.
> > Maybe the brushes are worn or maybe the solid state devices get hotter
> > than they have for awhile. Certainly the cooling of old greasy/dirty
> > components is not as good as on a clean new unit. I'm not sure that a
> > test stand is going to successfully imitate the service environment that
> > I'm thinking of. This might explain death shortly after the new battery
> > is installed though.
> >
> > 3. Weak "maintenance free" batteries are sometimes low on electrolyte. I
> > think that further reduces their capacity to absorb any excess voltage
> > or current and might lead to more voltage excursions. Most people never
> > pop the caps off automobile batteries any more as it is often not
> > obvious how to do it, or that it can be done. It seems that my little
> > (8AH) AGM batteries will accept very little current initially when fully
> > discharged.
> >
> > 4. As a WAG another contrib ution might be abnormal operation while
> > fooling around with a weak battery. If I leave the ignition/key on with
> > my ND IR alternator on my aircraft without starting the engine, the
> > alternator does draw several amps of field current and it will heat up
> > quite noticeably with no cooling airflow.
> >
> > Anyway my personal rule now is to change out any suspicious battery with
> > a new FULLY charged unit and I can sometimes send the vehicle to the
> > wreckers with the original alternator. I do run weak batteries in my
> > tractor but that has an external homemade VR that hangs out in the
> > breeze (like the alternator) and everything runs very very cool ;)
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > >> SNIP>
> > >> I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator
> > >> so this seamed to have validated that statement. For sure though,
> > >> from my observations , the battery appeared to go bad first then 2
> > >> hours later after a new battery was installed the regulator seems to
> > >> have failed.
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm skeptical of such claims. Consider how many batteries
> > > you've replaced in cars without having to replace the alternator
> > > too.
> > >
> > > I've "killed" a few alternators in various test situations
> > > but all failures involved either loss of cooling or mechanical
> > > issues such as bearing or shear-shaft failures.
> > >
> > > The way to "test" a weak-battery-kills-alternators hypothesis is
> > > to separate the two components and then craft a test plan designed
> > > to kill an alternator. In other words, if I had a brand new
> > > alternator and a charter to damage it in some way on the test
> > > stand, what kinds of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
> > ; > device to bring about its untimely demise?
> > >
> > > Once such a test plan is devised, then deduce how battery
> > > behavior mimics any of the abuses you've crafted for the
> > > purpose of killing an alternator.
> > >
> > > I'd be interested in anyone's ideas as to how you might go
> > > about it. Alternators are inherently self current limiting.
> > > Given sufficient cooling air, you cannot "overload" one to
> > > destruction. Alternator diodes are robust and will withstand
> > > reverse voltage transients many times greater than system voltage.
> > > It's the regulators that are most vulnerable to a load-dump
> > > event and that's been demonstrated by several builders using
> > > Van's (and perhaps other) alternators combined with b-lead
> > > contactor controls.
> > >
> > > I'm not suggesting that battery condition might not be a bit-player
> & gt; > in a scenario that's hard on alternators. For example:
> > > I can see how the "weak battery" thing might have morphed into
> > > a cause/effect for alternator failure where someone knows that
> > > having a battery be disconnected from the alternator at the same
> > > time all loads are removed causes a potentially hazardous
> > > over-shoot. One might deduce that a "weak" battery has
> > > lost its ability to mitigate a load-dump events thereby
> > > placing the alternator at-risk.
> > >
> > > If this hypothesis were in play for your situation, the alternator
> > > seems most likely to have failed while the "weak" battery was
> > > in place. Certainly having a "strong" new battery in place totally
> > > eliminates the risk for hazardous transients during ordinary
> > > system load reductions.
> > >
> > > This could be hypothetically thrashed for d ays bu
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky) |
| Subject: | Another 60A alternator, internally re gulated |
voltage regulator failure
I have a blast tube towards the back where the regulator is.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland(at)novellus.com>
Hmmm. My 60A alternator just failed after 15 hours. It also had a cracked back
bracket. Don't know if that had any effect on the failure, but there sure seems
to be a lot of the 60A ND's failing. Mine had blast tubes for cooing on both
front and back openings.
Randy
7A San Jose, Ca
-----Original Message-----
From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net [mailto:luckymacy(at)comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:11 AM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage
regulator failure
My update. I bought an alternator from Autozone that matched the suzuki/chevrolet
automobile replacement alternator often quoted to be the same as Van's 60
amp internally regulated alternator even though the part number was just slightly
different. I could not tell a difference from the outside though their computer
said 55 amp and not 60 amp. It has a Nippondenso internal fan and a hotline
of 800 228 9672.
In the install manual, it has a CAUTION: A defective or discharged battery can
damage your new alternator.
But the reason my alternator may have failed is that there was one of the feet
on the alternator was cracked clean through. Though it was still rigidly mounted
that had to set up some fun vibration within the alternator itself. Don't
know if that actually was a cause for the battery to fail as opposed to the opposite
hypothesis I was banting about.
Fun stuff. I still have the magic alternator killing odyssey pc680 battery I removed
if anyone has a Van's 60amp alternator they want to test for kill.....
;-)
Next task is to replace the high intensify landing/taxi light bulbs that burned
out when turned on with 18 volts on the bus....
lucky
-------------- Original message --------------
From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
>
> For years I was skeptical too that a weak battery would hasten
> alternator death. However eventually I developed a few thoughts on why
> there may be some truth to this in automobiles.
>
> 1. Higher longer charging does tend to make the alternator run hotter
> and some internal VR alternators are not well cooled. Any vehicle that
> is started with jumper cables is about to ask for a serious effort from
> its charging system.
>
> 2. Installing a new but partly charged battery may stress the alternator
> even higher than ever as it charges the battery at max current for an
> extended period. An old alternator just may not be up to the ef fort.
> Maybe the brushes are worn or maybe the solid state devices get hotter
> than they have for awhile. Certainly the cooling of old greasy/dirty
> components is not as good as on a clean new unit. I'm not sure that a
> test stand is going to successfully imitate the service environment that
> I'm thinking of. This might explain death shortly after the new battery
> is installed though.
>
> 3. Weak "maintenance free" batteries are sometimes low on electrolyte. I
> think that further reduces their capacity to absorb any excess voltage
> or current and might lead to more voltage excursions. Most people never
> pop the caps off automobile batteries any more as it is often not
> obvious how to do it, or that it can be done. It seems that my little
> (8AH) AGM batteries will accept very little current initially when fully
> discharged.
>
> 4. As a WAG another contrib ution might be abnormal operation while
> fooling around with a weak battery. If I leave the ignition/key on with
> my ND IR alternator on my aircraft without starting the engine, the
> alternator does draw several amps of field current and it will heat up
> quite noticeably with no cooling airflow.
>
> Anyway my personal rule now is to change out any suspicious battery with
> a new FULLY charged unit and I can sometimes send the vehicle to the
> wreckers with the original alternator. I do run weak batteries in my
> tractor but that has an external homemade VR that hangs out in the
> breeze (like the alternator) and everything runs very very cool ;)
>
> Ken
>
> >> SNIP>
> >> I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator
> >> so this seamed to have validated that statement. For sure though,
> >> from my observations , the battery appeared to go bad first then 2
> >> hours later after a new battery was installed the regulator seems to
> >> have failed.
> >
> >
> > I'm skeptical of such claims. Consider how many batteries
> > you've replaced in cars without having to replace the alternator
> > too.
> >
> > I've "killed" a few alternators in various test situations
> > but all failures involved either loss of cooling or mechanical
> > issues such as bearing or shear-shaft failures.
> >
> > The way to "test" a weak-battery-kills-alternators hypothesis is
> > to separate the two components and then craft a test plan designed
> > to kill an alternator. In other words, if I had a brand new
> > alternator and a charter to damage it in some way on the test
> > stand, what kinds of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
> ; > device to bring about its untimely demise?
> >
> > Once such a test plan is devised, then deduce how battery
> > behavior mimics any of the abuses you've crafted for the
> > purpose of killing an alternator.
> >
> > I'd be interested in anyone's ideas as to how you might go
> > about it. Alternators are inherently self current limiting.
> > Given sufficient cooling air, you cannot "overload" one to
> > destruction. Alternator diodes are robust and will withstand
> > reverse voltage transients many times greater than system voltage.
> > It's the regulators that are most vulnerable to a load-dump
> > event and that's been demonstrated by several builders using
> > Van's (and perhaps other) alternators combined with b-lead
> > contactor controls.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting that battery condition might not be a bit-player
& gt; > in a scenario that's hard on alternators. For example:
> > I can see how the "weak battery" thing might have morphed into
> > a cause/effect for alternator failure where someone knows that
> > having a battery be disconnected from the alternator at the same
> > time all loads are removed causes a potentially hazardous
> > over-shoot. One might deduce that a "weak" battery has
> > lost its ability to mitigate a load-dump events thereby
> > placing the alternator at-risk.
> >
> > If this hypothesis were in play for your situation, the alternator
> > seems most likely to have failed while the "weak" battery was
> > in place. Certainly having a "strong" new battery in place totally
> > eliminates the risk for hazardous transients during ordinary
> > system load reductions.
> >
> > This could be hypothetically thrashed for d ays bu
I have a blast tube towards the back where the regulator is.
Hmmm.
My 60A alternator just failed after 15 hours. It also had a cracked
back bracket. Don't know if that had any effect on the failure, but
there sure seems to be a lot of the 60A ND's failing. Mine had blast tubes
for cooing on both front and back openings.
Randy
7A San
Jose, Ca
My update. I bought an alternator from Autozone that matched the
suzuki/chevrolet automobile replacement alternator often quoted to be the same
as Van's 60 amp internally regulated alternator even though the part number
was just slightly different. I could not tell a difference from the outside
though their computer said 55 amp and not 60 amp. It has
a Nippondenso internal fan and a hotline of 800 228 9672.
In the install manual, it has a CAUTION: A defective or discharged battery
can damage your new alternator.
But the reason my alternator may have failed is that there was one of
the feet on the alternator was cracked clean through. Though it was
still rigidly mounted that had to set up some fun vibration within the alternator
itself. Don't know if that actually was a cause for the battery to
fail as opposed to the opposite hypothesis I was banting about.
Fun stuff. I still have the magic alternator killing odyssey pc680
battery I removed if anyone has a Van's 60amp alternator they want to test
for kill..... ;-)
Next task is to replace the high intensify landing/taxi light bulbs that burned
out when turned on with 18 volts on the bus....
lucky
> --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Ken
>
> For years I was skeptical too that a weak
battery would hasten
> alternator death. However eventually I developed
a few thoughts on why
> there may be some truth to this in automobiles.
>
> 1. Higher longer charging does tend to make the alternator
run hotter
> and some internal VR alternators are not well cooled.
Any vehicle that
> is started with jumper cables is about to ask for a
serious effort from
> its charging system.
>
> 2. Installing
a new but partly charged battery may stress the alternator
> even
higher than ever as it charges the battery at max current for an
> extended
period. An old alternator just may not be up to
the ef
fort.
> Maybe the brushes are worn or maybe the solid state devices get
hotter
> than they have for awhile. Certainly the cooling of old greasy/dirty
> components is not as good as on a clean new unit. I'm not sure
that a
> test stand is going to successfully imitate the service environment
that
> I'm thinking of. This might explain death shortly after
the new battery
> is installed though.
>
> 3. Weak "maintenance
free" batteries are sometimes low on electrolyte. I
> think that
further reduces their capacity to absorb any excess voltage
> or current
and might lead to more voltage excursions. Most people never
> pop the
caps off automobile batteries any more as it is often not
> obvious
how to do it, or that it can be done. It seems that my little
> (8AH) AGM
batteries will accept very little current initially when fully
> discharged.
>
> 4. As a WAG another contri
b utio
n might be abnormal operation while
> fooling around with a weak battery.
If I leave the ignition/key on with
> my ND IR alternator on my aircraft
without starting the engine, the
> alternator does draw several amps
of field current and it will heat up
> quite noticeably with no cooling
airflow.
>
> Anyway my personal rule now is to change out any
suspicious battery with
> a new FULLY charged unit and I can sometimes
send the vehicle to the
> wreckers with the original alternator. I do
run weak batteries in my
> tractor but that has an external homemade VR
that hangs out in the
> breeze (like the alternator) and everything runs
very very cool ;)
>
> Ken
>
> >> SNIP>
> >> I had heard that a "weak" battery can damage the alternator/regulator
> >> so this seamed to have validated that statement.
For sure though,
> >> from my observatio
ns , t
he battery appeared to go bad first then 2
> >> hours later after
a new battery was installed the regulator seems to
> >> have failed.
> >
> >
> > I'm skeptical of such claims. Consider
how many batteries
> > you've replaced in cars without having
to replace the alternator
> > too.
> >
> > I've
"killed" a few alternators in various test situations
> > but all failures
involved either loss of cooling or mechanical
> > issues such
as bearing or shear-shaft failures.
> >
> > The way to "test"
a weak-battery-kills-alternators hypothesis is
> > to separate
the two components and then craft a test plan designed
> > to kill
an alternator. In other words, if I had a brand new
> > alternator and
a charter to damage it in some way on the test
> > stand, what kinds
of abuses might I heap upon the unsuspecting
> ;
> device to bring about its untimely demise?
> >
> > Once
such a test plan is devised, then deduce how battery
> > behavior
mimics any of the abuses you've crafted for the
> > purpose of killing
an alternator.
> >
> > I'd be interested in anyone's ideas
as to how you might go
> > about it. Alternators are inherently
self current limiting.
> > Given sufficient cooling air, you cannot
"overload" one to
> > destruction. Alternator diodes are robust and
will withstand
> > reverse voltage transients many times greater than
system voltage.
> > It's the regulators that are most vulnerable
to a load-dump
> > event and that's been demonstrated by several builders
using
> > Van's (and perhaps other) alternators combined with
b-lead
> > contactor controls.
> >
> > I'm not suggesting
that battery condition might not be a bit-p
layer
& gt; > in a scenario that's hard on alternators. For example:
>
> I can see how the "weak battery" thing might have morphed into
>
> a cause/effect for alternator failure where someone knows that
>
> having a battery be disconnected from the alternator at the same
>
> time all loads are removed causes a potentially hazardous
> >
over-shoot. One might deduce that a "weak" battery has
> > lost its
ability to mitigate a load-dump events thereby
> > placing the alternator
at-risk.
> >
> > If this hypothesis were in play for
your situation, the alternator
> > seems most likely to have failed
while the "weak" battery was
> > in place. Certainly having a "strong"
new battery in place totally
> > eliminates the risk for hazardous
transients during ordinary
> > system load reductions.
>
>
> > This could be hypothetically thra
shed f
or d ays bu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Bradburry <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | Transpo V1200 Voltage Regulator |
Bob and others,
I have the regulator that is described in the following data sheet.
http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
It is a little difficult to tell from the picture, but the connection
tabs are labeled like this left to right and top to bottom:
F S A I
Stator Output
B-
This regulator is a replacement for a stock Ford regulator, however, I
do not think that it is grounded though the case. The case is heavily
anodized aluminum and would be very difficult to make a good connection.
I have the F connected to the alternator field, the A connected to the
5A circuit breaker, the A and S are jumpered together.
I have no idea what to do with the tab labeled "Stator Output" or the
tab labeled "B-". I suspect that the "B-" is the ground, but not certain.
The only instruction that comes with the unit is a sheet of paper that
says not to over torque the mounting screws.
I have tried the internet and all I find is the pdf file above. I have
tried calling Transpo tech support, but they will not call me back.
Does anyone understand regulators well enough to help me out here?
By the way, Bob, thanks for the quick assistance on my diode questions.
Bill B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More Contactor - Newbie questions |
Jeff,
This is Dennis in Rochester Hills. You need to give me a call and come over
to see my electrical system and I think things will fall into place quickly!
Call me at 248-953-0374. My wiring is done to the point that I can show you
how the contactors work, and how power flows through the system.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "contactor's small terminal" that has an
8AWG wire connected.
The small terminals on the contactor should have small (20 or 22AWG) wires -
one from the big "+" terminal, the other leads to the master switch. The
battery provides the power for the solenoid coil - the master switch
provides the ground. There should be a diode across the small terminals as
well.
If you have 2 batteries, each one needs a contactor for safety. In normal
operation, both contactors are closed and the batteries are in parallel.
But you need to be able to connect/disconnect them separately 1) for due to
failure modes where one battery could bring down the other one, and 2) each
battery typically powers different things in battery-only mode (when the
alternator fails).
The external power connector has a contactor for the same reasons - control
and potential failure modes. The power for this solenoid comes from the
external power source - again the switch just provides a ground.
Dennis Glaeser
Rochester Hills, MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
Subject: More Contactor - Newbie questions
From: jdalton77 (jdalton77(at)comcast.net)
Date: Mon Jan 08 - 8:59 AM
Hello,
I'm sorry to be asking such basic questions, but I am still confused
about the use of contactors and relays. I've been reading Bob's book,
but I'm not always sure how to interpret the schematics.
In terms of the battery contactor, I know the hot lead goes from the
battery to the large post, and that the "output" side (leading to the
starter) is not engaged until I flip, or depress, the starter switch.
But how does the 8AWG wire that connects to the main bus from the
contactor's"small" terminal become "hot?" Is it always hot? I see a
switch for "turning on the main bus" but how does that work? Doesn't
the switch need to be hot in order to turn on the current to the main
bus from the battery contactor?
Also, in the back of the book there is a schematic for connecting a
ground power plug (Piper style). A contactor is shown here also. Why
do I need one here, and in a similar vein, wouldn't I need a powered
switch to turn it "on" to allow current to pass through it? What would
activate the contactor when I plugged in the external power. And would
this be a "continuous duty" contactor or more like a starter contactor?
Finally, on two batteries. Is there any reason two batteries could not
be connected in parallel, without using another contactor, or another
switch? Why would that kind of setup not give me redundancy if one of
the two batteries were to perish while flying? I'm not challenging
anything in the book here - I just don't understand it.
I've learned a ton in the two weeks I've been reading the book - but I'm
just starting to learn the language.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jdalton77" <jdalton77(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More Contactor - Newbie questions |
Dennis,
Thanks for your offer. I just received my shipping docs for my wing kit.
I'll be out of town until the 17th but will call you when I get back. I
definitely want to see your plane and your wiring.
Jeff
248-709-4775
----- Original Message -----
From: "glaesers" <glaesers(at)wideopenwest.com>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:09 PM
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: More Contactor - Newbie questions
>
>
> Jeff,
>
> This is Dennis in Rochester Hills. You need to give me a call and come
> over
> to see my electrical system and I think things will fall into place
> quickly!
> Call me at 248-953-0374. My wiring is done to the point that I can show
> you
> how the contactors work, and how power flows through the system.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by the "contactor's small terminal" that has an
> 8AWG wire connected.
>
> The small terminals on the contactor should have small (20 or 22AWG)
> wires -
> one from the big "+" terminal, the other leads to the master switch. The
> battery provides the power for the solenoid coil - the master switch
> provides the ground. There should be a diode across the small terminals
> as
> well.
>
> If you have 2 batteries, each one needs a contactor for safety. In normal
> operation, both contactors are closed and the batteries are in parallel.
> But you need to be able to connect/disconnect them separately 1) for due
> to
> failure modes where one battery could bring down the other one, and 2)
> each
> battery typically powers different things in battery-only mode (when the
> alternator fails).
>
> The external power connector has a contactor for the same reasons -
> control
> and potential failure modes. The power for this solenoid comes from the
> external power source - again the switch just provides a ground.
>
> Dennis Glaeser
> Rochester Hills, MI
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------
> Subject: More Contactor - Newbie questions
> From: jdalton77 (jdalton77(at)comcast.net)
> Date: Mon Jan 08 - 8:59 AM
>
> Hello,
>
> I'm sorry to be asking such basic questions, but I am still confused
> about the use of contactors and relays. I've been reading Bob's book,
> but I'm not always sure how to interpret the schematics.
>
> In terms of the battery contactor, I know the hot lead goes from the
> battery to the large post, and that the "output" side (leading to the
> starter) is not engaged until I flip, or depress, the starter switch.
> But how does the 8AWG wire that connects to the main bus from the
> contactor's"small" terminal become "hot?" Is it always hot? I see a
> switch for "turning on the main bus" but how does that work? Doesn't
> the switch need to be hot in order to turn on the current to the main
> bus from the battery contactor?
>
> Also, in the back of the book there is a schematic for connecting a
> ground power plug (Piper style). A contactor is shown here also. Why
> do I need one here, and in a similar vein, wouldn't I need a powered
> switch to turn it "on" to allow current to pass through it? What would
> activate the contactor when I plugged in the external power. And would
> this be a "continuous duty" contactor or more like a starter contactor?
>
> Finally, on two batteries. Is there any reason two batteries could not
> be connected in parallel, without using another contactor, or another
> switch? Why would that kind of setup not give me redundancy if one of
> the two batteries were to perish while flying? I'm not challenging
> anything in the book here - I just don't understand it.
>
> I've learned a ton in the two weeks I've been reading the book - but I'm
> just starting to learn the language.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Strobe and other wireing |
Should the strobe wires (from a central power pack) be kept apart from the
other wires e.g. trim, and nav light wiring to the emp, and nav lights etc
in the wings, or is it OK to bundle all in the same conduit - I have been
told this is asking for trouble regarding electrical interference
Best regards - John (England) building RV9a
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe and other wireing |
>
>
>Should the strobe wires (from a central power pack) be kept apart from the
>other wires e.g. trim, and nav light wiring to the emp, and nav lights etc
>in the wings, or is it OK to bundle all in the same conduit - I have been
>told this is asking for trouble regarding electrical interference
It's one of aviation's enduring myths.
You may bundle them together. If you DO
experience noise from the strobes, it will
have nothing to do with wiring proximity.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Wicks Aircraft Seminar date posted |
Dr. Dee and I will be in Highland IL on March 10/11
to do an AeroElectric Connection seminar in the facilities
of Wicks Aircraft. If interested in this presentation, see
http://aeroelectric.com/whatsnew.html
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Richardson" <jrichard(at)ccser.com> |
| Subject: | Wire size, battery to starter |
I would appreciate anyone's real life experience with this seemingly simple
decision of what wire size to use connecting battery to starter. After
reading Bob's Aero-Electric Connection chapter 8 and calculating voltage
drops using numbers from Figure 8-3 (AWG wire table), #4 AWG wire is more
than adequate in a 24 volt system with battery to starter run of about 10
feet starting a 6 cylinder engine. In my case, the airframe is composite,
so I can not use the airframe as the return conductor and must run a second
wire back to the battery from the starter. Bob discussion on page 8-9 "WHEN
IS AN OVERLOAD NOT AN OVERLOAD" helps me lean toward #4 AWG vs the larger #2
AWG.
Have any of you wired your 24 volt, aft battery location, starter system
with #4 AWG wire and if so, how does it crank when you first hit the starter
switch? And does anyone know the wire size used on newer production single
piston aircraft with aft mounted batteries?
I'm sure this issue has been discussed in the past, but I haven't seen it
during my involvement with the Aeroelectric list. I apologize to anyone
seeing this for the Nth time.
John Richardson
Lancair Legacy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Transpo V1200 Voltage Regulator |
>
>
>Bob and others,
>
>I have the regulator that is described in the following data sheet.
>
>http://www.aeroelectric.com/Mfgr_Data/Regulators/Transpo/V1200_Transpo.pdf
>
>It is a little difficult to tell from the picture, but the connection tabs
>are labeled like this left to right and top to bottom:
>F S A I
>
>Stator Output
>
>B-
>
>This regulator is a replacement for a stock Ford regulator, however, I do
>not think that it is grounded though the case. The case is heavily
>anodized aluminum and would be very difficult to make a good connection.
Looking over Transpo's product line, they have a common
thread that runs through their labeling system where B- is
the same as "case ground".
>I have the F connected to the alternator field, the A connected to the 5A
>circuit breaker, the A and S are jumpered together.
>I have no idea what to do with the tab labeled "Stator Output" or the tab
>labeled "B-". I suspect that the "B-" is the ground, but not certain.
Hmmmm . . . if I recall correctly, the original mechanical Ford
regulators attached the "S" terminal to the stator center tap. When
later alternator eliminated that feature, S and A were tied together.
I don't know what that "stator output" might be unless it's analogous
to the later regulator topologies that watch for stator AC output
(shaft is spinning) to activate the regulator.
>The only instruction that comes with the unit is a sheet of paper that
>says not to over torque the mounting screws.
>I have tried the internet and all I find is the pdf file above. I
>have tried calling Transpo tech support, but they will not call me back.
Too bad. They have a very wide range of products and as far
as I know, a reasonably clean reputation for quality and
performance. As soon as I get my drive stand running (the
phase converter arrived yesterday), I could run some tests
on your regulator and see what it takes to wake it up.
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Parlow" <ericparlow(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin WAAS upgrade for GNS 430 |
Has anyone upgraded their GNS-430 to a GNS-430W (WAAS)?
And are there any additional hardware/software changes required?
ERic
RV-10
Avionics
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/9/2007
Hello Bret, Continuing our dialogue.
1) You wrote: "If I get called out on the carpet for a non-TSO'd GPS, what
would they say
about my non-TSO'd TruTrak AP, Ray Allen trim system, GRT AHRS/Magnetometer,
HID homegrown landing lights, LED nav lights, etc?"
I believe that IFR / Night equipment for ABEA's falls into one of the
following categories:
1A) Purely optional equipment installed at the desire of the builder with no
existing regulatory requirement.
1B) Equipment required by FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) because of wording in
the aircraft's Operating Limitations.
1C) Equipment required by FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) because of wording in
the aircraft's Operating Limitation that is identified as needing to be
"approved" in those paragraphs.
1D) Equipment required by other paragraphs within the FAR's that would apply
to all aircraft, both type certificated with standard airworthiness
certificates and ABEA's with special airworthiness certificates.
1E) Equipment required by the AIM for certain types of operations that would
apply to all aircraft, both type certificated with standard airworthiness
certificates and ABEA's with special airworthiness certificates.
2) Your non-TSO'd TruTrak AP, Ray Allen trim system, GRT AHRS/Magnetometer,
HID homegrown landing lights and other equipment of that ilk would fall into
category 1A above and should generate no FAA criticism because it is not
TSO'd.
3) Your LED nav (position) lights would fall into category 1C above. See
91.205 (c), (2). If your initial ABEA airworthiness inspector issues the
aircraft a special airworthiness certificate he has, by implication,
"approved" those position lights in the name of the FAA Administrator (see
FAR 1.1). If he refuses to issue the certificate and demands to see TSO
markings because the regulations require it, he is wrong. If he refuses to
issue the certificate and demands to see either TSO markings or test results
showing that the lights meet FAR Part 23 position light standards, that is
within his prerogative as an inspector.
4) If you had only a non TSO'd GPS aboard and performed a specific operation
that the AIM required a TSO approved GPS for then you would not be in
compliance with 1E and may be subject to a charge of careless or reckless
operation (see FAR 91.13).
5) You wrote: "My understanding is that before flight into the national air
system, under
IFR, the pilot/builder of the OBAM aircraft must determine and document via
flight testing that the aircraft and it's systems meet the requirements for
IFR flight, night flight, etc."
This is certainly common sense. I would be interested in seeing some
regulatory basis for the above. The sources that I am aware of that cover
specific ABEA requirements for IFR and night flight are the Operating
Limitations for that aircraft and the references contained therein including
FAR 91.319.
FAR 91.319 (d), (2) reads "Operate under VFR day only, unless otherwise
specifically authorized by the Administrator."
The Operating Limitations will contain these words: "After completion of
Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or
instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated
under VFR, day only."
If the aircraft meets the "appropriately equipped" criteria it is considerd
by the FAA to have been given the Administrator's specific authorization to
fly at night and under IFR. What we have been discussing is what constitutes
"appropriately equipped".**
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
**PS: It is interesting to note that if the aircraft is given authorization
for aerobatic flight in the Operating Limitations that those maneuvers must
be specifically tested and documented in the aircraft's logbook.
PPS: You wrote: "This is a really interesting topic and I truly respect your
opinions.
It is evident you have a good understanding of these issues."
I appreciate your kind words.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
>I see your point, and have a GNS 430 as my primary GPS. I want the GRT IFR
>GPS as a secondary GPS (hard to beat getting an IFR WAAS GPS for $750.00).
>
> If I get called out on the carpet for a non-TSO'd GPS, what would they say
> about my non-TSO'd TruTrak AP, Ray Allen trim system, GRT
> AHRS/Magnetometer, HID homegrown landing lights, LED nav lights, etc?
>
> My understanding is that before flight into the national air system, under
> IFR, the pilot/builder of the OBAM aircraft must determine and document
> via flight testing that the aircraft and it's systems meet the
> requirements for IFR flight, night flight, etc.
>
> Bret
>
> PS, This is a really interesting topic and I truly respect your opinions.
> It is evident you have a good understanding of these issues.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DeWitt Whittington <dewittw(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Interesting running notice on the Aerotronics web site |
All,
I just noticed the following announcement on the www.Aerotronics.com
web site. Anybody knows what they are referring to?
Oshkosh Alert: Be the first to Building A, Booth 1073/1074 to witness
the unveiling of the next generation in avionics. This unveiling
will revolutionize your experimental panel! See you July 24th - 30th!
Dee
DeWitt (Dee) Whittington
406 N Mulberry St
Richmond, VA 23220-3320
(804) 358-4333 phone and fax
SKYPE: hilltopkid
GlaStar Sportsman 2+2 #7034
Eggenfellner H6 Subaru with 2.01 redrive
dee.whittington(at)gmail.com
www.glasairaviation.com
www.glastar.org
www.eggenfellneraircraft.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/9/2007
Hello Bill,
1) You wrote: " In some instances the regs require that a piece of equipment
MUST MEET TSO
STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders. In other instances the
equipment MUST BE TSO'd. This is the case with IFR GPS units."
Both TSO-145A and TSO-C146A dealing with IFR GPS units contain the following
paragraph (MPS means Minimum Performance Standards):
"g. Deviations. The FAA has provisions for using alternative or equivalent
means of compliance to the criteria set forth in the MPS of this TSO.
Applicants invoking these provisions shall demonstrate that an equivalent
level of safety is maintained and shall apply for a deviation per 14 CFR
21.609"
2) TSO-C129a is an older TSO dealing with IFR GPS units and does not contain
specific alternate compliance words within it as is the case with more
current FAA TSO's, but here is a quote from the current AIM, note the use of
the word "equivalent":
"g. Equipment and Database Requirements.
1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems
requires that:
(a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in
class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and......"
3) You wrote: "If simply meeting the TSO requirements is adequate, why
should a
manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"?"
My point exactly. Simply meeting some of the TSO requirements is not
adequate to fulfill the intent of the FAA TSO requirements.
GRT implies that they are completely fulfilling the FAA TSO intent by
writing: "The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity monitoring and 5
updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR GPS TSO C129 and C146."
The equipment must either be TSO'd in accordance with the provisions of FAR
Part 21 Subpart O or FAA deviation approval from the TSO in accordance with
paragraph 21.609 must be obtained. Neither one of these are easy actions to
take and there is no indication in the GRT statement posted that either
action has been taken. Hence my suspicion of misleading weasel wording.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GRT GPS TSO
"A piece of equipment either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked
TSO compliant or it is not TSO'd."
True, but not necessarily the point...
In some instances the regs require that a piece of equipment MUST MEET TSO
STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders.
In other instances the equipment MUST BE TSO'd. This is the case with IFR
GPS units.
You mentioned, "...manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of
obtaining TSO approval for a piece of equipment..."
If simply meeting the TSO requirements is adequate, why should a
manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JOHN TIPTON" <jmtipton(at)btopenworld.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Strobe and other wireing |
Bob
Thank you
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Strobe and other wireing
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Should the strobe wires (from a central power pack) be kept apart from the
>>other wires e.g. trim, and nav light wiring to the emp, and nav lights etc
>>in the wings, or is it OK to bundle all in the same conduit - I have been
>>told this is asking for trouble regarding electrical interference
>
> It's one of aviation's enduring myths.
> You may bundle them together. If you DO
> experience noise from the strobes, it will
> have nothing to do with wiring proximity.
>
> Bob . . .
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> < What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
> < the authority which determines whether there can be >
> < debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
> < scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
> < with experiment. >
> < --Lawrence M. Krauss >
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/9/2007
Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no
law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a country!?
The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when consideration of fines
begin, it is immaterial."
This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we have
come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real soon.
We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have non
regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.) to help
interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those same
bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB judge
charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation because you
violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and certificate action
is not immaterial.
2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several
years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a TSOed
unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in the
wind."
The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a pilot
knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that the AIM
said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or violation
occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to punishment for such a
violation of the AIM. This is true.
3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the
price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing, why
wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?"
If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only be
performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking a risk.
His risk could result in:
a) No harm.
b) Embarrassment.
c) A fine.
d) Loss of certificate
e) Injury to self or others.
f) Death of self or others.
g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding community.
Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
________________________________
From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
> I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe
> that an ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being
> called to account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or
> improper performance on his part would have a very difficult time
> convincing the authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be
> entirely acceptable to them.
Could you please stand back while I prepare to insert my foot in my
mouth, but...
That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no law against
it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial. That just quacks to
much like "ex post facto" law to not be "ex post facto" law. If the
non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several years, but then went
flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in
the wind.
> So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his
> aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger
> him or others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that
> goal then his choice should be clear to him.
If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price, only
lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
pre-requisite homework, after all?
Ernest Christley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wire size, battery to starter |
>
>I would appreciate anyone s real life experience with this seemingly
>simple decision of what wire size to use connecting battery to
>starter. After reading Bob s Aero-Electric Connection chapter 8 and
>calculating voltage drops using numbers from Figure 8-3 (AWG wire table),
>#4 AWG wire is more than adequate in a 24 volt system with battery to
>starter run of about 10 feet starting a 6 cylinder engine. In my case,
>the airframe is composite, so I can not use the airframe as the return
>conductor and must run a second wire back to the battery from the
>starter. Bob discussion on page 8-9 WHEN IS AN OVERLOAD NOT AN OVERLOAD
>helps me lean toward #4 AWG vs the larger #2 AWG.
>
>Have any of you wired your 24 volt, aft battery location, starter system
>with #4 AWG wire and if so, how does it crank when you first hit the
>starter switch? And does anyone know the wire size used on newer
>production single piston aircraft with aft mounted batteries?
>
>I m sure this issue has been discussed in the past, but I haven t seen it
>during my involvement with the Aeroelectric list. I apologize to anyone
>seeing this for the Nth time.
I've seen some 14v LongEz wired with a pair of 4AWG where
the round trip was on the order of 24 feet. They reported
"adequate performance". But they never ventured out of
the California style weather.
The question becomes one of maximizing performance when
trying to crank an engine in cold weather where battery
impedance goes up as does cranking currents. Our cold weather
test parameters for getting STC to put RG batteries into
TC aircraft assumed 300A for 15 seconds and a cold soaked
BATTERY (about -15C) voltage had to stay above 9V for the
15 second interval.
The 24 a.h. RG battery passed with flying colors. Now the
question becomes how much of that 9V are you willing to toss
of at the terminals of the starter for the same cranking
scenario?
I know this is a very broad brush . . . I'm aware of very
few detailed cold weather cranking studies done on our
piston singles . . . and all those airplanes have the
battery mounted up front in an all metal airplane. That
data would not be very helpful to us here.
The risks are as follows: You may find that 4AWG "get's
'er started" most if not all of the time. But I'll suggest
it will crank better and start sooner if wiring drops
are minimized. Short cranking cycles translates to longer
battery and starter brush life. Finally, it may make the
go/no-go difference in an unusually cold cranking environment.
2AWG is 4 oz/foot, 4AWG is 2.5 oz/foot. The delta weight
for your proposed 20' round trip run is 1.5 x 20 = 30
oz. The real question before you is are you willing to
trade about 2 pounds of empty weight for cold-cranking
insurance?
Bob . . .
---------------------------------------------------------
< What is so wonderful about scientific truth...is that >
< the authority which determines whether there can be >
< debate or not does not reside in some fraternity of >
< scientists; nor is it divine. The authority rests >
< with experiment. >
< --Lawrence M. Krauss >
---------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ABEA and TSO's |
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> 1/9/2007
>
> Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
>
> 1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's
> no law against
> it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
> country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
> consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial."
>
> This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we
> have come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real
> soon.
>
> We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
> written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have
> non regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.)
> to help interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those
> same bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
> interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
>
> And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB
> judge charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation
> because you violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and
> certificate action is not immaterial.
>
> 2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for
> several years, but then went
> flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
> TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke
> in the wind."
>
> The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a
> pilot knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that
> the AIM said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or
> violation occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to
> punishment for such a violation of the AIM. This is true.
I'm not a lawyer, but you say "punishment for such a violation of the
AIM". Earlier, you said that, "the AIM is not regulatory in nature."
How can you be punished for something that isn't a regulation?
(Aaaaah, shucks!! Now I'm gonna have to go off and study something
else... 'cause it won't leave me alone until I know.)
>
> 3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half
> the price, only
> lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
> why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
> pre-requisite homework, after all?"
>
> If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
> equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only
> be performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking
> a risk. His risk could result in:
>
> a) No harm.
>
> b) Embarrassment.
>
> c) A fine.
>
> d) Loss of certificate
>
> e) Injury to self or others.
>
> f) Death of self or others.
>
> g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding
> community.
>
> Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
> effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
I don't mean to disparage you, because you have presented yourself very
honorably in these many conversations, but this just sounds like
complete FUD. Dont' use that non-TSOed stuff...you'll die. There is a
way for the FAA to communicate their intentions...(F)ederal (A)viation
(R)egulations. There is a process for the FAA to get a FAR in place
that protects everyones rights. They can put anything they want into an
AIM, without Congressional oversight, or public review. I do not know
it for a fact, but I'll be dollars to donuts that no one has ever been
convicted for an "AIM violation". . . but I'll have to study up some to
be sure.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gmcjetpilot(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Another 60A alternator, internally regulated voltage |
regulator failure
>From: "McFarland, Randy" <Randy.McFarland(at)novellus.com>
>Hmmm. My 60A alternator just failed after 15
>hours. Mine had blast tubes for cooing on both
>front and back openings.
>Randy 7A San Jose, Ca
Van suffered from a poor supplier for awhile. I talk
to Tom Green and suggested new vendor's.
It's not the ALTS issue, quality of new units are better.
MAKE NO MISTAKE THESE ARE NOT NIPPON
DENSO (ND) ALTERNATORS. They are China
made and all vendors from that part of the world are
not the same. Ones made in Taiwan are of higher
quality. ND stopped making these alternators 10-15
years ago. Get ND replacement parts if possible.
http://www.densoproducts.com/
http://www.densoaftermarket.com/
http://www.densocorp-na.com/
http://www.globaldensoproducts.com/
>From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
>I could not tell a difference from
>The outside though their computer said 55 amp and
>not 60 amp.
That's because Van sells a 55 amp alternator that
they call 60 amps. ND rates the output at a lower
RPM (recall 5000 rpm) not max out put at full RPM
(8000 rpm than it levels off).
>In the install manual, it has a CAUTION: A
>defective or discharged battery can damage your
>new alternator.
NO KIDDING. Humm those engineers, dumb
Amen brother, I can't believe all the justification.
Even Bob N has gone on&on how important the main
battery is, and suggest schemes to proactively change
batteries as preventative maintenance. Why risk it? Sure
a dead battery will take all the charge it can (based on
internal resistance) and the alternator will give it all
it can. ANY OF THIS SOUNDS GOOD? No.
The Odyssey battery has very specific charge
requirements & *alternator charging* a dead battery is
NOT ONE OF THE APPROVED METHODS. I
love experts, but please just read the instructions,
follow them. They are written by engineers. Sure
you will get away with it in a pinch, but this is an
airplane not a car.
>From: luckymacy(at)comcast.net (lucky)
>I have a blast tube towards the back where the
>regulator is.
Great IDEA! Folks the alternator set up on a
Lycoming is like comparing it to a car but you're bolting
the alternator directly to the exhaust pipe or header-stack.
BY ALL MEANS DO THE FOLLOWING:
Put a heat shield between the #1 exhaust pipe and
alternator. This is called radiant heat. If the alternator
and is only a handful of inches what do you think
it does to the alternators temp? darn engineers.
Not all blast tubes are equal, but by all means put it
right on the back where the regulator fins are. There
is no doubt heat will reduce service life of diodes
and I-VR.
Also running at 60% or 70% of the alternators rated
power MAX helps. If you must have seat heaters, pitot
heat (on a VFR plane oh brother) and million watt
landing lights, may be a 60 amp alternator will not
hack it. PLANE POWER has high power alternators,
and unlike B&C they have the fans that work counter-
clockwise for aircraft use.
>From: Ken <klehman(at)albedo.net>
> If I leave the ignition/key on with my ND IR
>alternator on my aircraft without starting the
>engine, the alternator does draw several amps of
>field current and it will heat up quite noticeably
>with no cooling airflow.
I healthy ND should not draw that much with the
engine off, but I have to check. Are you sure its not
part drain from other things like the 1 amp from the
master relay?
The modern microprocessor I-regulators have "logic
functions" that do not turn the field flow (thru the B-
lead not the IGN wire) until the thing's up to speed,
called soft start. Different ND models do different
things and its possible the low cost aftermarket
rebuild / clone you have may have a basic regulator
(read cheap) in it. Try to find ND parts if possible.
You make good points and I'll check the current drain
with the ign on and standing still.
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> |
I've seen this discussion before...
It's somewhat convoluted, but it's also quite simple.
"Careless and reckless" essentially means operating outside of what might be
described as "good practices".
The FARs prohibit "careless and reckless" operation.
The AIM describes "good practices".
So, operating outside the "good practices" described in the AIM can be
"careless and reckless" operation, which is a violation of the FAR's.
As a side note, not necessarily applicable to this particular post...
How often have we seen people spend a great deal of time and money
attempting to bypass a regulation that they could have easily complied with
for half the price?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ernest
Christley
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:31 PM
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
> 1/9/2007
>
> Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input.
>
> 1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's
> no law against
> it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a
> country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when
> consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial."
>
> This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we
> have come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real
> soon.
>
> We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations
> written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have
> non regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.)
> to help interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those
> same bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers)
> interpreting and enforcing those regulations.
>
> And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB
> judge charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation
> because you violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and
> certificate action is not immaterial.
>
> 2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for
> several years, but then went
> flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a
> TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke
> in the wind."
>
> The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a
> pilot knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that
> the AIM said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or
> violation occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to
> punishment for such a violation of the AIM. This is true.
I'm not a lawyer, but you say "punishment for such a violation of the
AIM". Earlier, you said that, "the AIM is not regulatory in nature."
How can you be punished for something that isn't a regulation?
(Aaaaah, shucks!! Now I'm gonna have to go off and study something
else... 'cause it won't leave me alone until I know.)
>
> 3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half
> the price, only
> lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing,
> why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the
> pre-requisite homework, after all?"
>
> If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent)
> equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only
> be performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking
> a risk. His risk could result in:
>
> a) No harm.
>
> b) Embarrassment.
>
> c) A fine.
>
> d) Loss of certificate
>
> e) Injury to self or others.
>
> f) Death of self or others.
>
> g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding
> community.
>
> Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational
> effort through these postings to help him make a better choice.
I don't mean to disparage you, because you have presented yourself very
honorably in these many conversations, but this just sounds like
complete FUD. Dont' use that non-TSOed stuff...you'll die. There is a
way for the FAA to communicate their intentions...(F)ederal (A)viation
(R)egulations. There is a process for the FAA to get a FAR in place
that protects everyones rights. They can put anything they want into an
AIM, without Congressional oversight, or public review. I do not know
it for a fact, but I'll be dollars to donuts that no one has ever been
convicted for an "AIM violation". . . but I'll have to study up some to
be sure.
--
,|"|"|, Ernest Christley |
----===<{{(oQo)}}>===---- Dyke Delta Builder |
o| d |o http://ernest.isa-geek.org |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
1/9/2007
Hello Bret:
1) You wrote: "As you can see, the FAA has left a wide loophole with the
phrase "or equivalent"."
The FAA has learned from experience that locking technical requirements in
bureaucratic documents in concrete can come back to bite them when
technology comes up with a better mouse trap that was not envisioned in the
document. So now-a-days they caveat their TSO's with a statement to the
effect that "if you can do it just as good, but maybe a little differently
we are willing to listen to your proposal."
The process for a request to deviate is described in FAR 21.609 and the
loophole is not that wide. You might find that entire FAR 21 Subpart O
interesting reading. You can see that obtaining TSO approval and
manufacturing in accordance with that approval can be burdensome.**
2) You wrote: "It appears that, from my understanding, a GPS used for IFR
navigation must meet the minimum standard of RTCA/DO-208 in order to meet
the standard of TSO-C129 in order to be approved for IFR navigation."
I agree. Also realize that there are other documents referenced in TSO-C129a
that may contain standards that the unit may have to meet. And the FAA may
chose to not incorporate all provisions of referenced documents into the
TSO. Some TSO's are absolutely infuriating -- they say nothing of substance
technically themselves, but instead reference several documents (such as SAE
documents) that cost a bunch of money for just three or four pages.
3) You wrote: "Problem is, I don't see where the FAA requires the GPS to be
"certified".
I agree. The words theFAA uses are "authorization (to perfom IFR operations)
requires equipment approved IAW TSO -C129" (version C129a is the current
version). Lawyers may not agree with me, but I bet the Garmin marketing
people looked at the FAA terminology of "authorization" and "approved" and
said "certified sounds better to us".
4) You wrote: "I may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin states
their GNS430 is "IFR Approach Certified", they are only stating that this
receiver meets the requirements of TSO-C129."
I agree -- and also meeting all the pertinent references to TSO-C129a and
permitting the FAA oversight of Garmin's production of the GNS 430. (See FAR
21.615).
In addition now Garmin is stating that the GNS 430W meets all the
requirements of TSO 146a.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
**PS: I worked with Lance Turk, founder of Vision Microsystems, on a special
size oil temperature probe for my TCM engine. He would not make the probe
for me because it would be non TSO'd and he did not want to contaminate his
FAA TSO approved production line. I wound up buying an empty brass
temperature probe body from Westach and sending it to Lance so that he could
have one of his technicians epoxy one of the Vision Microsystems special oil
temperature probe sensors into that brass body's cavity. Works like a charm.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
OC,
This is truly fascinating.
You said >
4) If you had only a non TSO'd GPS aboard and performed a specific operation
that the AIM required a TSO approved GPS for then you would not be in
compliance with 1E and may be subject to a charge of careless or reckless T
operation (see FAR 91.13).
January 02, 2007 - January 09, 2007
AeroElectric-Archive.digest.vol-gm