Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ak
November 26, 2005 - August 12, 2006
- GPS (perhaps with RAIM) would be integrated into the unit
- flight display would include airspeed, altitude, VSI, attitude,
gyro-stabilized magnetic compass, turn coordinator, angle of attack,
G meter, clock, timer, moving map (with various displays, including
high resolution terrain and associated warnings, engine out glide
cones, etc), nearest airport lists, etc. Will be able to
automatically determine things like density altitude, pressure
altitude, TAS, true wind vectors, etc.)
- ability to control com/nav units that provide compatibility through
a serial port.
- engine management capabilities would include tachometer, manifold
pressure, voltmeter, ammeter, oil pressure, oil temperature, fuel
pressure, fuel flow and quantity (with range calculation), CHT, and EGT.
- sensors would include solid state gyros for attitude and
accelerometers mounted in the processing unit, and an external
magnetometer.
- would have serial, analog, and digital ports for interfacing with
other devices, and USB port for upgrades. You could connect it to
lots of external sensors (switches to sense cabin door positions,
gear up or down, flap position, etc.) to be able to display the
status of the aircraft at a glance, and allow the unit to alert you
if anything is wrong. Where possible and practical, opto-isolation
or current limiting devices would be used to isolate external sensing
circuitry so that something like a short in the wires to one sensor
doesn't cause problems for the unit as a whole.
- Would provide altitude encoder output for transponders.
- would be capable of other "non-flight" features, like weight and
balance calculations, "smart" user-definable checklists (appropriate
checklists would be quickly accessible based on the condition the
system considers the aircraft to currently be in), etc.
- ability to set green, yellow, and red "zones" for acceptable values
for any parameter, with or without audio cues. For example, the unit
could be set to pop up warnings (visually and/or auditory) if oil
pressure drops too low, or if you are inadvertently deviating from an
assigned altitude. The limits, as well as the parameters to monitor
in this way would be defined by the pilot
- it has to have a simple user interface that just "makes sense",
trying to be as "intuitive" as possible based on the conditions of
the plane as to the sorts of things you are likely to want to do.
- external ports for pitot and static lines, as well as GPS antenna,
It would also provide serial ports for control of compatible radios,
transponder, etc.
- the system would be continually determining position, velocity, and
acceleration in the 3 linear, as well as the 3 rotational axes. If
anything doesn't pass sanity checks (traveling too fast, too slow, or
too high for your plane's capabilities, if there are sudden
discontinuities in position or velocity, etc, or if pitot/static
sensing doesn't match GPS or gyro and accelerometer calculations
within a reasonable percentage, it would flag a warning to alert you
of the potential unreliability. The good thing is that with three
methods of sensing critical things like altitude and airspeed (pilot/
static, GPS, and accelerometer/gyros), the system in many cases
should be able to determine which components have failed and fall
back on the remaining two methods to continue to operate).
- since the screen is large enough, the pilot could switch from
several customized displays, showing different elements individually
or partitioned off into different virtual windows (of course, if
there was a failure or anomaly in any system, or exceeding limits in
a sensor, it would show a special pop-up display of the problem until
it's fixed or the alert dismissed)
And if that weren't enough, I intend on bundling two separate
computers in the same chassis (both tied into the same set of
sensors), with separate A/D converters, etc. They would communicate
state of the aircraft information continually between each other,
each independently (hopefully) arriving at a similar result. If they
disagreed with one another by more than a certain tolerance level (or
if their companion stops working and no longer is transmitting status
data), again, a warning would be displayed to that effect. The
capability would be there to switch the display to show the output
from either computer if one starts to act up for any reason. And the
side benefit is that with two completely redundant machines, it would
be trivial to drive two independent displays in the cockpit, so you
could have, for example, the primary flight display on the pilot's
side, with engine instruments and moving map on the copilot's side,
or whatever you like. Of course, a second display would be optional
- but the capability would be there.
In short, I want it all :-) I know it sounds like a Christmas wish
list ('tis getting to be the season :-), but since I'll be building
this myself I can make it do whatever seems useful or interesting to
do. As I said, I'm years away from having anything to show for my
plans, but I thought I'd put a (very) early word out. As I said, I'd
be primarily developing this for my own use, but does anyone else out
there think they might be interested in such a system? Obviously, I
don't assume anyone would be committing to anything (I wouldn't even
myself until it got much closer to fruition). But if there is an
interest, and I've missed on something that someone would find
useful, I'm all ears - this is the perfect time. And perhaps more to
the point, if this thing turns out to be as great as I'm planning,
how much would you be willing to pay for one?
Thanks for indulging in this description of my long term project.
Dan
--
Syzygy Research & Technology
Box 83, Legal, AB T0G 1L0 Canada
Phone: 780-961-2213
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Interest in new EFIS/EMS |
That's a very ambitious project Dan. One tiny suggestion is to make the
engine sensors connect to a remote box in the engine compartment with only a
serial connection, ground and stabilised power supply coming from the main
unit. Panel wiring and connectors become a nightmare with the normal loom
especially with the 16 thermocouple leads.
John
From: "Dan Charrois" <danlist(at)syz.com>
>
> Hi everyone. First of all, let me say that this is still years away
> from happening. But I thought I'd put a bit of a feeler out now anyway.
>
> I'm thinking of developing an "all-in-one" glass cockpit. You'd
> ...................................
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interest in new EFIS/EMS |
| From: | "John Schroeder" <jschroeder(at)perigee.net> |
Hello Dan -
This is really an admirable project and I do envy your abilities and
resources in the electronics domain. I'm a stoneage tinkerer at best in
this field of seemingly endless potential. The following are my thoughts
on your idea.
If it is for yourself, go for it and keep us posted. However,
If you think you would want to sell the airplane at sometime in the
future, it may be difficult because the design and "what you want it to
do" may be very non-standard - to the extent that very few pilots would
want to buy and learn a "one of .." system. There would not be any
"experience" base (multiple opinions and reviews) from which to draw
knowledge - either for flying it or more importantly for maintenance
support. Examples are: (1) if it is a proprietary database can I update it
when required (IFR cycle?) (2) At what cost for the update? (3) If there
is an AHRS, where would one get it repaired or a replacement if it goes
down? etc. In other words, there is no "installed base" from which to draw
comfort, maintenance support and perspective.
If you eventually decide to sell the product, I believe that you will have
to bring others into the process by soliciting design goals and to achieve
a modicum of standardization with what is on the market. At this point,
you will begin to lose the conformity with your main criterion: "do what I
want it to do". For a flavor of what this process is, sign on to the Blue
Mountain Avionics web site and read some of the early commentary,
especially in the R&D section. There are many ideas offered and the
majority have their beginnings in what pilots have already experienced or
know about re glass cockpits. There are also some far-out ideas that I'm
glad did not see the light of day. If you do not implement some of the
mainline ideas, you will narrow the population of potential buyers. Oh by
the way... If it does not have a mini keyboard for entering data, I don't
want it. :-)) Twirling concentric knobs to enter data is the pits, IMHO.
So now you have a possible design goal.
Good luck on the project and keep us posted. It may become the "IPOD" of
the experimental glass cockpit and I'd buy one. And, maybe some of us
lurkers would buy some stock.
Cheers,
John
> As a result, the decision to develop my own
> EFIS/EMS was pretty much made right from the get-go. Though I plan
> on doing so for 1. The sheer enjoyment of it, and 2. To make it do
> exactly what I'd like it to do, I thought I'd post a note here to see
> if there are any others who may be interested in something like this
> as well.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Interest in new EFIS/EMS |
Dan, illegitimi non carborundum!
I'm doing the same thing and am nearly through with the design and
working on the software.
I still don't have a source for:
1. strain gauges
2. affordable AHRS reference
3. 3 axis accelerometers, although Analog Devices is really strong here,
4, stepper or other motors for autopilot muscle.
I have:
1. 17 inch LCD screen, mounted so it will pivot out of the way to see
installed steam gauges
2. 4 EGT,
3. 4 CHT,
4. circuits for normalization and calibration of temp thermocouples and
0-5v outputs,
5. airspeed,
6, altitude (both pressure and GPS),
7. turbo and manifold absolute pressures,
8. OAT,
9. engine coolant temp,
10 oil temp.
Software still under development:
1. highway in the sky,
2. autopilot,
3. terrain avoidance,
4. airspace and location depiction in OpenGL 3D,
5. full engine monitoring, including above sensors
Most of all, it is tremendous FUN!
It's all going into a Ford engine in a Mustang II.
David M.
John Schroeder wrote:
>
>Hello Dan -
>
>This is really an admirable project and I do envy your abilities and
>resources in the electronics domain. I'm a stoneage tinkerer at best in
>this field of seemingly endless potential. The following are my thoughts
>on your idea.
>
>If it is for yourself, go for it and keep us posted. However,
>
>If you think you would want to sell the airplane at sometime in the
>future, it may be difficult because the design and "what you want it to
>do" may be very non-standard - to the extent that very few pilots would
>want to buy and learn a "one of .." system. There would not be any
>"experience" base (multiple opinions and reviews) from which to draw
>knowledge - either for flying it or more importantly for maintenance
>support. Examples are: (1) if it is a proprietary database can I update it
>when required (IFR cycle?) (2) At what cost for the update? (3) If there
>is an AHRS, where would one get it repaired or a replacement if it goes
>down? etc. In other words, there is no "installed base" from which to draw
>comfort, maintenance support and perspective.
>
>If you eventually decide to sell the product, I believe that you will have
>to bring others into the process by soliciting design goals and to achieve
>a modicum of standardization with what is on the market. At this point,
>you will begin to lose the conformity with your main criterion: "do what I
>want it to do". For a flavor of what this process is, sign on to the Blue
>Mountain Avionics web site and read some of the early commentary,
>especially in the R&D section. There are many ideas offered and the
>majority have their beginnings in what pilots have already experienced or
>know about re glass cockpits. There are also some far-out ideas that I'm
>glad did not see the light of day. If you do not implement some of the
>mainline ideas, you will narrow the population of potential buyers. Oh by
>the way... If it does not have a mini keyboard for entering data, I don't
>want it. :-)) Twirling concentric knobs to enter data is the pits, IMHO.
>So now you have a possible design goal.
>
>Good luck on the project and keep us posted. It may become the "IPOD" of
>the experimental glass cockpit and I'd buy one. And, maybe some of us
>lurkers would buy some stock.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>
>
>
>
>>As a result, the decision to develop my own
>>EFIS/EMS was pretty much made right from the get-go. Though I plan
>>on doing so for 1. The sheer enjoyment of it, and 2. To make it do
>>exactly what I'd like it to do, I thought I'd post a note here to see
>>if there are any others who may be interested in something like this
>>as well.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Interest in new EFIS/EMS |
| From: | "Tom Brusehaver" <cozytom(at)mn.rr.com> |
There used to be a site:
http://openefis.org
All weekend I can't get to it, so I don't know if
it is just down, or if it is permanently off line.
There used to also be:
http://autopilot.sourceforge.net/
And again I am getting sql errors from sourceforge
so it could be a holiday weekend thing.
The autopilot shows a lot of information about
gyros, and other hardware.
>
> Dan, illegitimi non carborundum!
>
> I'm doing the same thing and am nearly through with the design and
> working on the software.
>
> I still don't have a source for:
> 1. strain gauges
> 2. affordable AHRS reference
> 3. 3 axis accelerometers, although Analog Devices is really strong here,
> 4, stepper or other motors for autopilot muscle.
>
> I have:
> 1. 17 inch LCD screen, mounted so it will pivot out of the way to see
> installed steam gauges
> 2. 4 EGT,
> 3. 4 CHT,
> 4. circuits for normalization and calibration of temp thermocouples and
> 0-5v outputs,
> 5. airspeed,
> 6, altitude (both pressure and GPS),
> 7. turbo and manifold absolute pressures,
> 8. OAT,
> 9. engine coolant temp,
> 10 oil temp.
>
> Software still under development:
> 1. highway in the sky,
> 2. autopilot,
> 3. terrain avoidance,
> 4. airspace and location depiction in OpenGL 3D,
> 5. full engine monitoring, including above sensors
>
> Most of all, it is tremendous FUN!
>
> It's all going into a Ford engine in a Mustang II.
>
> David M.
>
>
> John Schroeder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hello Dan -
>>
>> This is really an admirable project and I do envy your abilities and
>> resources in the electronics domain. I'm a stoneage tinkerer at best in
>> this field of seemingly endless potential. The following are my thoughts
>> on your idea.
>>
>> If it is for yourself, go for it and keep us posted. However,
>>
>> If you think you would want to sell the airplane at sometime in the
>> future, it may be difficult because the design and "what you want it to
>> do" may be very non-standard - to the extent that very few pilots would
>> want to buy and learn a "one of .." system. There would not be any
>> "experience" base (multiple opinions and reviews) from which to draw
>> knowledge - either for flying it or more importantly for maintenance
>> support. Examples are: (1) if it is a proprietary database can I update
>> it
>> when required (IFR cycle?) (2) At what cost for the update? (3) If there
>> is an AHRS, where would one get it repaired or a replacement if it goes
>> down? etc. In other words, there is no "installed base" from which to
>> draw
>> comfort, maintenance support and perspective.
>>
>> If you eventually decide to sell the product, I believe that you will
>> have
>> to bring others into the process by soliciting design goals and to
>> achieve
>> a modicum of standardization with what is on the market. At this point,
>> you will begin to lose the conformity with your main criterion: "do
>> what I
>> want it to do". For a flavor of what this process is, sign on to the
>> Blue
>> Mountain Avionics web site and read some of the early commentary,
>> especially in the R&D section. There are many ideas offered and the
>> majority have their beginnings in what pilots have already experienced
>> or
>> know about re glass cockpits. There are also some far-out ideas that I'm
>> glad did not see the light of day. If you do not implement some of the
>> mainline ideas, you will narrow the population of potential buyers. Oh
>> by
>> the way... If it does not have a mini keyboard for entering data, I
>> don't
>> want it. :-)) Twirling concentric knobs to enter data is the pits, IMHO.
>> So now you have a possible design goal.
>>
>> Good luck on the project and keep us posted. It may become the "IPOD" of
>> the experimental glass cockpit and I'd buy one. And, maybe some of us
>> lurkers would buy some stock.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> As a result, the decision to develop my own
>>> EFIS/EMS was pretty much made right from the get-go. Though I plan
>>> on doing so for 1. The sheer enjoyment of it, and 2. To make it do
>>> exactly what I'd like it to do, I thought I'd post a note here to see
>>> if there are any others who may be interested in something like this
>>> as well.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Interest in new EFIS/EMS |
| From: | "Doerr, Ray R [NTK]" <Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com> |
May I suggest a CAN bus for remote communications. I have developed a
Trim controller board that connects to the stick grip sensors and then
controls the trim and flap motors. I use the CAN bus to communicate
between the pilot side and co-pilot side controller. This info is then
transmitted on the bus. This way you could display the elevator, ailron
and flap positions with simply 2 wires. This is also a great way to
interconnect the remote sensor modules that could be positioned on the
firewall side for engine monitoring.
Thank You
Ray Doerr
CDNI Principal Engineer
Sprint PCS
16020 West 113th Street
Lenexa, KS 66219
Mailstop KSLNXK0101
(913) 859-1414 (Office)
(913) 226-0106 (Pcs)
(913) 859-1234 (Fax)
Ray.R.Doerr(at)sprint.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan
Charrois
Subject: Avionics-List: Interest in new EFIS/EMS
Hi everyone. First of all, let me say that this is still years away
from happening. But I thought I'd put a bit of a feeler out now anyway.
I'm thinking of developing an "all-in-one" glass cockpit. You'd
probably wonder when I'd bother when there are already other good
options available for EFIS / Engine Management Systems, etc. It's
for the same reason we build planes when there are already good ones
available commercially - there is a great sense of satisfaction in
developing something yourself. And besides, that way you can ensure
that it does exactly what *you* want.
First, my background - I have a Bachelor of Science in Electrical
Engineering, Computing Stream, and have spent the past 10 or so years
developing hardened, reliable hardware and software systems. More
recently, I became a private pilot (VFR only at the moment, but that
may change), and even more recently than that, an RV-10 builder. I
also have the luxury of owning my own company (which develops the
aforementioned hardware and software), so I can work on pretty much
whatever project I like. As a result, the decision to develop my own
EFIS/EMS was pretty much made right from the get-go. Though I plan
on doing so for 1. The sheer enjoyment of it, and 2. To make it do
exactly what I'd like it to do, I thought I'd post a note here to see
if there are any others who may be interested in something like this
as well. Not that I expect to get rich from doing so, but if there
is more than one person who can benefit from what I'll be working on,
so much the better. Of course, remember this is years away - I want
to finish the plane I'm currently building first so I'll have
something to test and develop it in. And hardware is going to
continue improve in the meantime, so nothing is set in stone.
So here are the specs of what I'm hoping to accomplish. It won't be
cheap, but then very little in aviation is...:
- A good sunlight-readable display is paramount - perhaps a
transreflective display (or whatever technology is appropriate by
then). Likely 10 inch.
- The processing equipment will be housed in a separate box from the
display
- For stability, reliability, and performance, it won't be running
anything like Windows. Probably a variant of BSD customized for the
purpose, flash memory based (no moving hard drives or something
similar to fail)
- An external watchdog timer would be implemented to automatically
restart the system if it were to fail for any reason
- An internal rechargeable battery would power the unit (and attached
sensors) if desired when the avionics bus is off, or if there is a
power system failure on the aircraft
- CPU and associated hardware would be a ruggedized embedded system/
single board computer with extended temperature operating range (-40
Celsius to +50 Celsius)
- GPS (perhaps with RAIM) would be integrated into the unit
- flight display would include airspeed, altitude, VSI, attitude,
gyro-stabilized magnetic compass, turn coordinator, angle of attack,
G meter, clock, timer, moving map (with various displays, including
high resolution terrain and associated warnings, engine out glide
cones, etc), nearest airport lists, etc. Will be able to
automatically determine things like density altitude, pressure
altitude, TAS, true wind vectors, etc.)
- ability to control com/nav units that provide compatibility through
a serial port.
- engine management capabilities would include tachometer, manifold
pressure, voltmeter, ammeter, oil pressure, oil temperature, fuel
pressure, fuel flow and quantity (with range calculation), CHT, and EGT.
- sensors would include solid state gyros for attitude and
accelerometers mounted in the processing unit, and an external
magnetometer.
- would have serial, analog, and digital ports for interfacing with
other devices, and USB port for upgrades. You could connect it to
lots of external sensors (switches to sense cabin door positions,
gear up or down, flap position, etc.) to be able to display the
status of the aircraft at a glance, and allow the unit to alert you
if anything is wrong. Where possible and practical, opto-isolation
or current limiting devices would be used to isolate external sensing
circuitry so that something like a short in the wires to one sensor
doesn't cause problems for the unit as a whole.
- Would provide altitude encoder output for transponders.
- would be capable of other "non-flight" features, like weight and
balance calculations, "smart" user-definable checklists (appropriate
checklists would be quickly accessible based on the condition the
system considers the aircraft to currently be in), etc.
- ability to set green, yellow, and red "zones" for acceptable values
for any parameter, with or without audio cues. For example, the unit
could be set to pop up warnings (visually and/or auditory) if oil
pressure drops too low, or if you are inadvertently deviating from an
assigned altitude. The limits, as well as the parameters to monitor
in this way would be defined by the pilot
- it has to have a simple user interface that just "makes sense",
trying to be as "intuitive" as possible based on the conditions of
the plane as to the sorts of things you are likely to want to do.
- external ports for pitot and static lines, as well as GPS antenna,
It would also provide serial ports for control of compatible radios,
transponder, etc.
- the system would be continually determining position, velocity, and
acceleration in the 3 linear, as well as the 3 rotational axes. If
anything doesn't pass sanity checks (traveling too fast, too slow, or
too high for your plane's capabilities, if there are sudden
discontinuities in position or velocity, etc, or if pitot/static
sensing doesn't match GPS or gyro and accelerometer calculations
within a reasonable percentage, it would flag a warning to alert you
of the potential unreliability. The good thing is that with three
methods of sensing critical things like altitude and airspeed (pilot/
static, GPS, and accelerometer/gyros), the system in many cases
should be able to determine which components have failed and fall
back on the remaining two methods to continue to operate).
- since the screen is large enough, the pilot could switch from
several customized displays, showing different elements individually
or partitioned off into different virtual windows (of course, if
there was a failure or anomaly in any system, or exceeding limits in
a sensor, it would show a special pop-up display of the problem until
it's fixed or the alert dismissed)
And if that weren't enough, I intend on bundling two separate
computers in the same chassis (both tied into the same set of
sensors), with separate A/D converters, etc. They would communicate
state of the aircraft information continually between each other,
each independently (hopefully) arriving at a similar result. If they
disagreed with one another by more than a certain tolerance level (or
if their companion stops working and no longer is transmitting status
data), again, a warning would be displayed to that effect. The
capability would be there to switch the display to show the output
from either computer if one starts to act up for any reason. And the
side benefit is that with two completely redundant machines, it would
be trivial to drive two independent displays in the cockpit, so you
could have, for example, the primary flight display on the pilot's
side, with engine instruments and moving map on the copilot's side,
or whatever you like. Of course, a second display would be optional
- but the capability would be there.
In short, I want it all :-) I know it sounds like a Christmas wish
list ('tis getting to be the season :-), but since I'll be building
this myself I can make it do whatever seems useful or interesting to
do. As I said, I'm years away from having anything to show for my
plans, but I thought I'd put a (very) early word out. As I said, I'd
be primarily developing this for my own use, but does anyone else out
there think they might be interested in such a system? Obviously, I
don't assume anyone would be committing to anything (I wouldn't even
myself until it got much closer to fruition). But if there is an
interest, and I've missed on something that someone would find
useful, I'm all ears - this is the perfect time. And perhaps more to
the point, if this thing turns out to be as great as I'm planning,
how much would you be willing to pay for one?
Thanks for indulging in this description of my long term project.
Dan
--
Syzygy Research & Technology
Box 83, Legal, AB T0G 1L0 Canada
Phone: 780-961-2213
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dan Charrois <danlist(at)syz.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interest in new EFIS/EMS |
Thanks, everyone, for your suggestions and great feedback you've sent
with regards to my planned project to develop my own EFIS. Since
this project seems to have generated a fair bit of interest (both
through private emails and postings back to the list), I thought I'd
expand upon some of the suggestions and ideas brought up.. To avoid
my replying to each of the messages individually on the list (and
resulting in tons of messages all from me), I thought I'd write this
single "reply" to everyone who contacted me.
Though I only have a VFR rating at the moment, I agree that there may
be a significant interest among IFR pilots. I have no idea what the
requirements would be to develop a system for legal IFR, but I
suspect it may be fairly intimidating. However, even if it can't be
used as a primary system, I'm sure that a bit of IFR experience sure
wouldn't hurt when developing the system to make it a useful
secondary resource at the very least. As I mentioned, I'm years away
from getting anything on the market, so I may well have an IFR rating
by then. It's something I'm interested in, at any rate.
Though I've done a lot of browsing to see what's currently available
hardware-wise, I haven't done any shopping for hardware yet, nor will
I likely do so until I'm ready to start the project (after my plane
is completed), despite the fact that I'm anxious to get started.
This is simply because hardware capabilities change so quickly. I'm
quite used to hardware being semi-outdated by the time I'm finished a
large software project, but I'd rather that it wasn't outdated even
before I started :-) Of course, I don't expect I'll be overly taxing
even today's hardware, but at the very least, future systems with
similar capability should be either less expensive, or less power
hungry (or both).
At the moment, I'm leaning towards a PC104 architecture for its
relative ruggedness, but again that may change if something better
pops up.
As Mickey Coggins suggested, I definitely intend on decoupling the
display from the rest of the system so that the inevitable changes
that will happen don't require a complete system redesign. Plus, it
would give more options for the end user in the size, style, and cost
of the display.
Some have questioned whether an external watchdog timer and dual
redundant systems are really necessary. Despite best efforts,
unfortunately even systems that are "supposed" to be totally reliable
sometimes crash. It could be everything from faulty software (which
is usually the case) to faulty hardware (which sometimes does happen
- particularly memory). Implementing a watchdog is easy and
inexpensive, so there's really no reason not to. At the very least,
it will prevent a locked up system from misleading the pilot into
thinking his attitude isn't changing when it could be doing so quite
drastically :-)
My desire to implement completely redundant systems stems from my own
personal situation. Though not a licensed pilot herself, my wife is
almost as enthusiastic as I am about flying, and she's interested in
having access to the same set of information from the co-pilot's side
as the pilot's side, though possibly displaying different details. I
could design a single system with two video outputs to minimize the
hardware, but it would by necessity result in a more complex (and
error-prone) system. Since single board computers themselves are
relatively inexpensive (especially when compared to the rest of the
hardware like displays and sensors), the easiest solution is to just
provide two identical single-display computers (with separate A/D
converters, etc.) with the same software on them, taking their input
from the same set of sensors. And if there are two computers in the
box, it's fairly trivial to get them to compare information and pop
up a warning if there is a disagreement. Of course, this redundancy
all stems from my own requirement of having two independent displays
in the cockpit, but if the result ends up going commercial, I'm sure
it could be made an optional component.
Making provision for multiple voltmeters and ammeters is a good idea,
and something I hadn't considered.
I agree that doing things like W&B calculations are usually done
before getting into the aircraft, but since it's a rather simple
software thing, there's really no reason not to include it.
There was another great suggestion by John Rippengal to use a remote
box in the engine compartment to measure and consolidate the readings
from the engine sensors before passing the data along to the main
processing box. It would definitely improve on the potential for a
real rat's nest, and keep the firewall penetration substantially
simpler. That's a perfect job for a simple microcontroller.
John Schroeder mentioned the possibilities of the plane being perhaps
more difficult to sell down the road with such a "customized" panel
that there may only end up being one of in the world. That's a
really good point, and I definitely realize that unless what I build
really takes off, the resale value just won't be there. After all,
if it's a "one of a kind" and something significant dies, there's
nothing that a future owner could do to fix it short of throwing it
away and buying something else. Of course, I'm not planning on
selling the plane (if I was, I wouldn't be building in the first
place), but it's something to keep in mind.
Throughout the design process, I definitely don't want to develop
things in a bubble. I'm hoping to draw upon the expertise of people
on this list and others who may have the use for such a device to
make sure that I don't start to move off towards a tangent that will
ultimately prove useless to anyone, and keep as much as possible to
"mainline" ideas.
John mentioned the example of providing a mini keyboard for entering
data instead of twirling concentric knobs. I agree that twirling
knobs is a lousy interface, and would definitely like to see a
keyboard option myself. Of course, I've flown in turbulence (as I'm
sure we all have) strong enough to make dealing with a mini keyboard
rather tough, so I don't see any reason not to allow both types of
devices for input. At least, with a twirling knob, you can hang on
to it while turning it so your hand isn't bouncing all over the
place. Plus, there are some situations (like scrolling through a
list) where a twirling knob is more intuitive than pressing arrow keys.
Thanks to everyone who mentioned similar projects they've been
working on - I'll try and contact some of you personally. I am
definitely interested to see what others have done here. As Tom
Brusehaver mentioned, openefis.org and autopilot.sourceforge.net
don't seem to be in operation at the moment. Hopefully they're
resurrected at some point so I can have a peek as to what they've
accomplished..
Using standards whereever possible, such as a CAN bus as suggested by
Ray Doerr, makes great sense. A CAN bus has a lot of great features
such as noise rejection that are critically important n a system like
this.
I also appreciate the suggestion from several people to check out the
Glass Panel Yahoo mailing list. I'll definitely do that.
Again, thanks everyone for your great suggestions.
Dan
--
Syzygy Research & Technology
Box 83, Legal, AB T0G 1L0 Canada
Phone: 780-961-2213
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | AI Nut <ainut(at)hiwaay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Interest in new EFIS/EMS |
What glass panel Yahoo list? Are you referring to MyGlassCockpit?
David M.
Dan Charrois wrote:
>
>Thanks, everyone, for your suggestions and great feedback you've sent
>with regards to my planned project to develop my own EFIS. Since
><<>>
>
>I also appreciate the suggestion from several people to check out the
>Glass Panel Yahoo mailing list. I'll definitely do that.
>
>Again, thanks everyone for your great suggestions.
>
>Dan
>
>
<<>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bbradburry(at)allvantage.com> |
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes |
P-300C
Does anyone know of a maker of an adapter to convert the output of these
capacitive probes to a 0-5V DC output? Or how to do it?
Thanks,
Bill Bradburry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: WX-8 Stormscope |
Greetings Mike, any luck on installation manual ?
Thanks Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: WX-8 Stormscope
>
> Randy,
>
> I have not heard of the antennas being that sensitive to damage, just
> false indications. So I wouldn't worry too much about that issue. I
> would bring up the fact that the WX8 has been out of production for well
> over 10 maybe even 20 years, so the unit is old. I will look around for
> an installation manual for that unit and get back to you.
>
> Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Dupree <97corvette(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes |
P-300C
what is the output of the probes now?
marvin
On Nov 30, 2005, at 3:48 PM, wrote:
>
> Does anyone know of a maker of an adapter to convert the output of
> these
> capacitive probes to a 0-5V DC output? Or how to do it?
>
> Thanks,
> Bill Bradburry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce" <bruce(at)justbruce.com> |
| Subject: | Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level Probes |
P-300C
Bill,
I don't know if you have the probe already, but you might want to check into
Pillar Point Avionics. They have a capacitance probe and controller that
outputs the 0-5VDC that you are looking for. They designed this to feed
glass panels. Even better, they allow you to calibrate your tank in 20
increments, which gives you extremely accurate measurements. I think most
of the other probes on the market are calibrated only at empty and again
when full, so if you have an odd shaped tank, the numbers displayed are
wildly inaccurate.
I know that their controller only works with their probes. You can mount
their controller in your panel since it has a display, or you can mount it
out of sight if you are using the 0-5VDC to drive a glass panel. Price for
probe and controller/display is $300 which is a pretty good deal for a
digital system. This is all from memory, but I think a second probe adds
another $50. The system can also be calibrated to set off a warning light or
annunciator at any fuel level you select.
Bruce L
Europa XS
Tracy, CA
http://www.ppavionics.com/FG1.html
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-
list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of bbradburry(at)allvantage.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:48 PM
To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Avionics-List: Electronics International Capacitive Fuel Level
Probes P-300C
Does anyone know of a maker of an adapter to convert the output of these
capacitive probes to a 0-5V DC output? Or how to do it?
Thanks,
Bill Bradburry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RF Radiation |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: RF Radiation
> Hi,
>
> I like simple solutions, and your approach seems like low effort with the
> potential of pleny of upside. Did you just pass the wire through the bead
> once, or did you loop it around a couple of times. If I have to do that
> then I am up for re wiring..... What was the ID of the beads ?
>
> Thanks, Paul
11/30/2005
Hello Paul, The concept is to use split ferrite beads so that you can apply
them any place that you choose along existing wiring with minimal
installation fuss -- no rewiring. Position them on the wire and fasten in
place with a ty wrap or plastic tape.
Just one trip through per bead, no looping, but you can put several beads on
one wire if you think that will help.
I think that the closer the interior of the bead is to the exterior of the
wire the more effective the bead (s) will be. Therefore I used 1/4 inch ID
beads. They seemed to fit my coax and headset cables just fine. I may have
also stuck some on wiring on the back side of some of my avionics boxes. It
has been awhile since I installed the beads. See the web site listed in my
original response copied below for more split bead info.
If you google ferrite split beads you will get additional -- probably
useless, but maybe interesting information.
OC
PS: I noticed that Bob Nuckolls included ferrite beads in one of his recent
answers as helping to solving radiation noise problems. Considering how
cheap they are and how easy to apply it seems like a logical first try.
11/24/2005
Hello Paul, I had an RF interference problem in my KIS TR-1 composite
airplane -- I won't bother you with the details.
My solution was so simple, basic, crude, un analytical and inexpensive that
I am almost embarassed to describe it to you. What I did is just buy a bunch
of split ferrite beads and spread them liberally around in various places
and the problem went away.
If you research ferrite split beads on the internet you will find that they
are a staple in the ham radio community and their construction (material)
and other characteristics can be highly technical in nature. I didn't get
too deeply involved in that.
I got my beads from Surplus Sales of Nebraska
http://www.surplussales.com/FerSplit/FerSplit-1.html. Phone: 402-346-4750.
Item number ICH-264-3164251. $2.00 each (the cheapest). I installed them
just by wrapping them with black plastic tape.
One of these days when I get real curious I will start removing them one by
one to see if the problems come back and to get a better handle on the
source. I suspect that the problem came from antenna radiations getting into
my
systems at certain frequencies.
OC
PS: I don't have much hope for making the Navaid more resistant to RF. It is
a real sieve / sponge. I'll put in a Tru Trak or Trio control unit in some
day.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | cell phone adapter |
| From: | "gary.stiffler(at)kroger.com 12/01/2005 17":36:55(at)roxy.matronics.com, |
Serialize complete at 12/01/2005 17:36:55(at)roxy.matronics.com
Does anyone know of an inexpensive cell phone adapter that I can put in
line with my David Clark head set? Or a plan to build one?
Thanks:
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade wire (m27500 or
22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is advised to use it ?
I have called my local electrical supply and can get shielded wire a lot
cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was riser type. Is the
FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard E. Tasker" <retasker(at)optonline.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aviation wire |
I don't know if there are any specific FAA regulations about the wire.
I believe in a homebuilt you can do virtually anything you want and can
probably get it approved. On the other hand, how much are you really
going to save? The tefzel wire in my RV9A will probably still be in
good shape long after I am gone. It cost a few bucks more than
commercial wire, but it is far superior in its qualities. All the
aircraft wire I have bought is 19 strand - much more flexible and
resistant to damage from flexing than commercial wire which is typically
seven strand. The tefzel insulation and/or jacket is far superior to
most commercial insulations - much better temperature ratings,
impervious to soldering temperatures and very abrasion resistant.
Considering how much money I have in my RV9A, the extra $50-100 or so in
wire costs was well worth it for my peace of mind.
Also, if you ever decide you want or need to sell the plane it will be
much more sales-worthy with regulation wire.
Dick Tasker
Brinker wrote:
>
> Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade wire (m27500 or
>22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is advised to use it ?
>I have called my local electrical supply and can get shielded wire a lot
>cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was riser type. Is the
>FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
>
>Randy
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Marcos Della" <mdella(at)cstone.com> |
There are many reasons to go with regulation wire and crimps, connectors, etc. I'm assuming that you've already looked over Bob's site at http://www.aeroelectric.com/ for various articles and suggestions...
For me, I use the MS22759/16 for all my single conductor stuff and the MS27500
for all multi conductor/shielded wire. Since you can basically buy things like
22 guage wire for around $0.15/ft or less if you buy in bulk, its hard not to
purchase. You're only going to go up to 20 or 18 gauge for power lines or things
that need the lower resistance/higher current rating.
Almost all my avionics wire is either 22 or 24 gauge for things like the CDIs,
annunciators, etc. For any audio, its always the three strand shielded (even
if two strand will work, the third strand is always needed *after* you pulled
the wire through the plane :-) like my stereo headsets and the RS-232 to the new
altutide encoder). All your breakers are selected based on the "wire" that
they are protecting. You're not really doing much for the equipment itself.
Your mostly trying to prevent issues with the wire.
Lastly, if you've ever taked "hardware store" wire or something similar and shorted
it across a large amperage battery (don't do this, danger danger will robinson)
the insulation will basically melt into a slag and your "wire" is now shorted
to the frame that its mounted on. MUCH better to pop the fuse/breaker/whatever.
Also better to only have it warm up rather than melt down (different
in the MilSpec coating vs PVC or whatever you're using).
I'm only a layman, but most of my experience is in electronics, not avionics.
But I've now learned enough lessons to know that why bother saving a few pennies.
P.S. I just received in the mail today another 300ft of M22759/16-22-9 (22gauge
white) and 100ft of M27500-22TG3T14 (three conductor shielded) for my instrument
panel. Only thing I do a little differently is I use black for ground wires
and red for power wires. White for everything else :-)
Marcos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard E. Tasker
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
-->
I don't know if there are any specific FAA regulations about the wire.
I believe in a homebuilt you can do virtually anything you want and can probably
get it approved. On the other hand, how much are you really going to save?
The tefzel wire in my RV9A will probably still be in good shape long after I
am gone. It cost a few bucks more than commercial wire, but it is far superior
in its qualities. All the aircraft wire I have bought is 19 strand - much more
flexible and resistant to damage from flexing than commercial wire which is
typically seven strand. The tefzel insulation and/or jacket is far superior
to most commercial insulations - much better temperature ratings, impervious
to soldering temperatures and very abrasion resistant.
Considering how much money I have in my RV9A, the extra $50-100 or so in wire costs
was well worth it for my peace of mind.
Also, if you ever decide you want or need to sell the plane it will be much more
sales-worthy with regulation wire.
Dick Tasker
Brinker wrote:
>--> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade wire
>(m27500 or
>22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is advised to use it ?
>I have called my local electrical supply and can get shielded wire a
>lot cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was riser
>type. Is the FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
>
>Randy
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aviation wire |
Thanks for all the response's. I surely do not want to cause any
problems after spending good money on avionics. I understand a little bit
about wiring insulation and the differences between the flexibility in the
multiple strands. But this is my first experience with wiring an airplane.
Sorry I did not make myself clear.
Since the FAA generally goes overboard on everthing I figured there
was a comparable readily available wire that could be bought at the local
electrical supply that would be as good as the aviation grade.
Randy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Subject: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
>
> Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade wire (m27500
> or
> 22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is advised to use it
> ?
> I have called my local electrical supply and can get shielded wire a lot
> cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was riser type. Is
> the
> FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
>
> Randy
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Matthew Mucker" <matthew(at)mucker.net> |
I am by no means an expert, but I believe two of the primary concerns
involving 'aviation' wire are the flamability of the insulation, and the
amount of smoke/toxic gases that the insulation would emit in the case of a
fire. These are greater concerns than the flexibility of the wire, I
believe.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
> Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 9:40 AM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
>
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Thanks for all the response's. I surely do not want to
> cause any
> problems after spending good money on avionics. I understand
> a little bit
> about wiring insulation and the differences between the
> flexibility in the
> multiple strands. But this is my first experience with
> wiring an airplane.
> Sorry I did not make myself clear.
> Since the FAA generally goes overboard on everthing I
> figured there
> was a comparable readily available wire that could be bought
> at the local
> electrical supply that would be as good as the aviation grade.
>
> Randy
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
> To:
> Subject: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
>
>
> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
> >
> > Is it nessessary for a homebuilt to use aviation grade
> wire (m27500
> > or
> > 22759/16 etc.) Or I should reword this and ask if it is
> advised to use it
> > ?
> > I have called my local electrical supply and can get
> shielded wire a lot
> > cheaper, have'nt looked at it but salesman told me it was
> riser type. Is
> > the
> > FAA just overly anal about the mil spec in certified planes ?
> >
> > Randy
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Required FAA Paperwork |
Responding to AeroElectric-List message copied below and previously posted
by: John Markey markeypilot(at)yahoo.com
<>
12/2/2005
Hello John, Short answer first. No, your friend does not have to file any
additional IFR approval paperwork with the FAA for the installation of a
Garmin 430 GPS in his Glasair amateur built experimental airplane.
To explain:
1) Your friend did not need and did not have any specific ".....orginal
signoff for IFR in his operating limitations." He did not need, and should
not have attempted to obtain, any such subsequent FAA approved sign off.
2) His Operating Limitations, which were part of his original special
airworthiness certificate issued by either an FAA or DAR inspector, should
contain words like the following from the then current version of FAA Order
8130.2_:
"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."
"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
3) Those sentences are the grand sum total of IFR approval for his aircraft.
There are some other instructions in his Operating Limitations that would
apply when operating the aircraft IFR such as:
"In addition, this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable
air traffic and general operating rules of part 91and all additional
limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of 91.319(e)."
"When filing instrument flight rules (IFR), the experimental nature of this
aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."
As long as his aircraft is in compliance with his Operating Limitations and
the instructions in the current version of the AIM he is legal to fly IFR
with no further aircraft approval or paperwork from the FAA.
4) I might point out that included in the AIM for IFR GPS operations are the
requirements that the pilot comply with instructions in his AFM and AFM
supplement and pilot guides. Since your friend is in control of what is in,
or not in, his planes AFM and supplement that should present no problem.
Since the pilot guide for his Garmin GPS is published by Garmin, complying
with that guide should be no problem.
5) Common sense would require that the pilot follow some installation
guidance such as that provided in AC 20-138A and a perform a healthy dose of
VFR / VMC flight testing before attempting any IFR operations.
Please let me know if I can be of further help.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin 300XL and Database intent |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0003 1.0000 -4.4871
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Mark &
Lisa" and copied below.
12/02/2005
Hello Mark and Lisa, I read your posting below with great interest and found
myself mostly in agreement. But a few points puzzled me -- can we pursue
them?
1) <>
If we are talking amateur built experimental aircraft here the point is moot
because the builder can write his AFM and AFM supplement to say, or not say,
what he chooses as long as it is not in direct conflict with the FAR's, the
GPS manufacturer's "pilot guide", or the AIM.
If we are talking type certificated aircraft here then it would appear that
the actual wording contained in the AFM supplement that was approved by the
FAA for that aircraft would control.
If the supplement was written back when AC 20-138 was current and the
supplement contains the sample wording provided by that AC one has
considerable data substitution leeway as described by Old Bob in his quotes
from that version of the AC.
If the supplement was written after AC 20-138A became effective and it
contains the wording from the sample in that version of the AC then one is
forced into splitting much finer hairs regarding the FAA's intent in my
opinion .
3) You wrote: "I've never received (from the FAA) a notice telling me to
change the information
in the FAA-approved supplement, so I believe I'm still legal in using it, as
approved."
I presume here that you are referring to a type certificated aircraft with
AFM supplement wording following the sample wording provided in AC 20-138. I
would agree with your position.
4) You wrote: "I update my database at the beginning of the update cycle,
such that
my database is dated later than the date of the chart system's first update
cycle. Now I know all changed data on the update cards apply to my
database."
You lost me here unless you mean that you put in a new chip, card, or
software that officially updates the entire navigation database. It is not
important that I understand, but I'll provide the following from TSO C129a
regarding Class A equipment.
"a. (3) (x) 1. The equipment shall provide an appropriately updatable
navigation data base containing at least the following location information
in terms of latitude and longitude with a resolution of 0.01 minute or
better for the area(s) in which IFR operations are to be approved: all
airports, VORs (and VORTACs), NDBs, and all named waypoints and
intersections shown on en route and terminal area charts, Standard
Instrument Departures (SIDs) and Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs).
NOTE: Manual entry/update of navigation data base data shall not be
possible. (This requirement does not preclude the storage of "user defined
data" within the equipment.)"
Since I am not sure what you are doing I don't know if this pertains or not.
5) You wrote: "Prior to flight, I check all the data I plan to use. By
carrying this list
in-flight I can quickly and accurately assess the validity of data I hadn't
planned to use. If data I need for a particular route is out of date, I
simply request a different route, or use the VOR. So far (3 years), I've
never NOT been able to complete a flight due to out-of-date data."
This seems very conservative and safe to me.
6) You wrote: "I'm meeting the intent of both the FAA and equipment
manufacturer -- and my
own fairly stringent common-sense and safety requirements. And I believe
I'm making Old Bob smile, because this is exactly the result he was shooting
for!"
Anything that makes Old Bob smile is OK with me.
OC
< So it appears to me that you are correct
> if one is following AC20-138, but
> that AC20-138A has a specific limitation
> wording recommendation that the
> ".... database must be installed and
> contain current data." I interpret that
> to mean that all of the data in the
> data base must be current.
My interpretation is if SOME of the data is current, then the database
contains current data and meets the intent of the AC. It's up to me to
determine of the data is current before use. This allows me (and everyone
else in my situation) to continue to use my GX60 following the guidance
contained in the supplement approved when the unit was installed. I've
never received (from the FAA) a notice telling me to change the information
in the FAA-approved supplement, so I believe I'm still legal in using it, as
approved.
> As a practical matter it would be
> very difficult for a pilot flying IFR
> in IMC who was taken off his planned
> route to confirm that all of the data
> points on his new routing were in fact
> accurately portrayed in his out dated
> data base.
Actually data currency is very easily determined in a number of ways. I use
Howie Keefe's Air Chart system. I receive a cycle update every 28 days
listing all the information that's changed since the last cycle. The list
is cumulative; all changes since the first cycle of the year are on the
list. I update my database at the beginning of the update cycle, such that
my database is dated later than the date of the chart system's first update
cycle. Now I know all changed data on the update cards apply to my
database.
Prior to flight, I check all the data I plan to use. By carrying this list
in-flight I can quickly and accurately assess the validity of data I hadn't
planned to use. If data I need for a particular route is out of date, I
simply request a different route, or use the VOR. So far (3 years), I've
never NOT been able to complete a flight due to out-of-date data.
I'm meeting the intent of both the FAA and equipment manufacturer -- and my
own fairly stringent common-sense and safety requirements. And I believe
I'm making Old Bob smile, because this is exactly the result he was shooting
for!
Mark & Lisa Sletten
Legacy FG N828LM
http://www.legacyfgbuilder.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Folks,
Quite apart from all the good reasons to use aviation wire, the
nature of the insulation makes it much easier to solder if you are a
new to this sort of thing.
In terms of keeping resistance to a minimum in ageing joints, the
value of the silver coating on the copper should not be discounted.
I actually use aviation wire in competition autos.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
At 03:22 3/12/2005, you wrote:
>
>I am by no means an expert, but I believe two of the primary concerns
>involving 'aviation' wire are the flamability of the insulation, and the
>amount of smoke/toxic gases that the insulation would emit in the case of a
>fire. These are greater concerns than the flexibility of the wire, I
>believe.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
> > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 9:40 AM
> > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Aviation wire
> >
> > <brinker@cox-internet.com>
> >
CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet
Services and Warbirds.Net. & .
This message is intended for and should only be used by the
addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information.If you are not the intended recipient any use
distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this
communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken
delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately to Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR GPS INSTALLATION |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.5000 1.0000 0.0000
Responding to an email from Daniel Snow which is copied below.
11/05/2005
Hello Daniel, No need to apologize -- I welcome your questions and like your
cautious approach. Before I address your questions individually I invite
your attention to the article "Homebuilt In the Clouds" by Dick Koehler
starting on page 62 of the September 2005 issue of Sport Aviation magazine.
He gives some good insight into the fundamental problem faced by the FAA in
this regard. Simply stated in my words it is that:
1) The FAA recognizes that some amateur built experimental aircraft have
achieved the sophistication and utility level that permitting them to fly
IFR is warranted.
2) There are no published certification standards for amateur built
experimental aircraft.
3) Any attempt to create such standards, educate all of the builders and FAA
and DAR inspectors about those standards, and then create the administrative
structure to enforce those standards out in the field would be an
overwhelming task. In addition it would defeat much of what the amateur
built experimental aircraft program is all about by creating a stifling
bureaucratic blanket on the innovations that come from that community.
So the approach chosen by the FAA was to continue the administration of a
basic day VFR amateur built experimental aircraft program and create an
avenue that would allow the builder to pursue IFR capability on his own if
he adhered to certain requirements for his aircraft. That avenue is found in
the following two sentences in the aircraft's Operating Limitations:
"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."
"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91.
Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
In essence the FAA or DAR inspector grants a Special Airworthiness
Certificate (which includes the Operating Limitations) for the aircraft to
fly day VFR. The aircraft must remain day VFR during its Phase I flight
testing. Upon completion of that flight testing if the builder decides that
he wants to fly IFR he must follow the requirements of his Operating
Limitations for equipping his aircraft to do so. No FAA administrative
structure exists to subsequently approve or inspect how he equips his
amateur built experimental aircraft for IFR operations.
<>
Yes, many do, but consider this: Putting together an IFR capable panel is
not a trivial activity. (You may have heard the saying "Any one can build an
airplane, it takes a real man to build the instrument panel for it." So the
reality is that the majority of IFR capable panels are probably not built by
individual builders, but instead are built by companies specializing in
building such panels. Just look at the ads by panel building companies in
the magazines that cater to our community. And the FAA specifically permits
this in paragraph 6. b. of AC 20-139.
On the other end of the spectrum there are builders out there that are so
deeply into the electron flow within their airplane that the airframe is
just an adjunct device to haul around this magnificent avionics suite that
they labored over for xxx months or years.
You wrote: "I would read the FAR's before installing, and I would use best
practices and FAA guidance to install the unit.>>
Right on, and don't forget the AIM (Aeronautical Information Manual). It has
extensive information now on both GPS hardware, software (data base currency
and use) and flight operations.
You wrote: "I'm also assuming there is no continuing certification
requirements for an IFR GPS?>>
I am not sure that I understand what your question here. There is no
periodic testing of the IFR GPS hardware per FAA directives like there is
for the transponder, encoder, and altimeter. There are navigation database
currency requirements that have been chewed over in some detail in recent
postings.
<>
Hey, I am no authority -- Just a fellow builder who tries to understand the
bureaucratic bramble bushes and pass on what I can glean. I don't mind being
questioned at all -- many times I have learned something important when
somebody doubted me and I had to dig deeper.
You could query Joe Norris at EAA. jnorris(at)eaa.org. I'll send him a copy of
this email to make it easier for you. Be sure to let us all know if he has
some wrinkle that is not apparent to us. Thanks.
OC
PS: You may find out that the initial equippage of your aircraft for GPS IFR
flight is not the biggest hurdle. Becoming IFR proficient (not just
current), maintaining that currency / proficiency (got safety pilots
handy?), getting good in flight weather information (radar, XM satellite
weather?), and paying for the up keep of a legal IFR GPS navigation data
base, are all significant things to consider.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snow, Daniel A." <Daniel.Snow(at)wancdf.com>
Subject: IFR GPS INSTALLATION
I'm sorry to belabor this point, but I just want to make sure of what I
think you said, since you were answering a different but similar question.
I would like to have an IFR GPS, but I don't want to pay the price to have a
shop install/certify the unit. Are you saying that I, as the builder, can
install an IFR GPS in my experimental without a shop or FAA involvement, and
legally use it to fly IFR? Do you know if very many experimental builders
do this? I would read the FAR's before installing, and I would use best
practices and FAA guidance to install the unit. I'm also assuming there is
no continuing certification requirements for an IFR GPS?
Lastly, how confident are you of this interpretation? I don't mean to
question you, but just to establish the certainty of this approach.
Sorry again for prolonging the topic. Thanks.
BELOW IS A PREVIOUS POSTING WHICH TRIGGERED DANIEL'S QUERY ABOVE
12/2/2005
Hello John, Short answer first. No, your friend does not have to file any
additional IFR approval paperwork with the FAA for the installation of a
Garmin 430 GPS in his Glasair amateur built experimental airplane.
To explain:
1) Your friend did not need and did not have any specific ".....orginal
signoff for IFR in his operating limitations." He did not need, and should
not have attempted to obtain, any such subsequent FAA approved sign off.
2) His Operating Limitations, which were part of his original special
airworthiness certificate issued by either an FAA or DAR inspector, should
contain words like the following from the then current version of FAA Order
8130.2_:
"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."
"Aircraft instruments and equipment installed and used under 91.205 must
be inspected
and maintained in accordance with the requirements of part 91. Any
maintenance or inspection of this equipment must be recorded in the aircraft
maintenance records."
3) Those sentences are the grand sum total of IFR approval for his aircraft
equipment.
There are some other instructions in his Operating Limitations that would
apply when operating the aircraft IFR such as:
"In addition, this aircraft must be operated in accordance with applicable
air traffic and general operating rules of part 91and all additional
limitations herein prescribed under the provisions of 91.319(e)."
"When filing instrument flight rules (IFR), the experimental nature of this
aircraft must be listed in the remarks section of the flight plan."
As long as his aircraft is in compliance with his Operating Limitations and
the instructions in the current version of the AIM he is legal to fly IFR
with no further aircraft approval or paperwork from the FAA.
4) I might point out that included in the AIM for IFR GPS operations are the
requirements that the pilot comply with instructions in his AFM and AFM
supplement and pilot guides. Since your friend is in control of what is in,
or not in, his planes AFM and supplement that should present no problem.
Since the pilot guide for his Garmin GPS is published by Garmin, complying
with that guide should be no problem.
5) Common sense would require that the pilot follow some installation
guidance such as that provided in AC 20-138A and a perform a healthy dose of
VFR / VMC flight testing before attempting any IFR operations.
Please let me know if I can be of further help.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Dudley <rhdudley(at)att.net> |
| Subject: | Proptach for sale |
Hi Listers,
I have satisfied myself of the calibration of my panel tachometer.
I no longer need my Proptach which, if you are not familiar, is a hand
held optical tachometer that allows you to check your prop rpm directly.
It cost me about $200 and I'll sell it for half price.
Please contact me off list.
Richard Dudley
-6A 70 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roberto Honorato" <roberto.honorato(at)williamaeronautica.com.br> |
| Subject: | Cessna Automatic 300A Question - NAV2 |
Hello!
I need to connect the deviation information of a KMD150 in a system
that uses Navomatic 300A, the Control head/computer had the PN 42660-1202
and model CA395A.
Does anybody know the number of the pins of the NAV2 inputs of the
Automatic Pilot Cessna NAVOMATIC 300A?
Thanks in advance
Robert
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1117 1.0000 -1.3229
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)"
<<.........skip.........Note the EFIS provides the altitude encoder
function......skip....>>
12/15/2005
Hello Frank, Here is a bit of a gotcha to consider. Every two years one must
get the FAR 91.411 and 91.413 inspections, commonly called "VFR certs" and
"IFR certs".
These checks can be made in the airplane, but many shops much prefer to have
the altimeter and encoder brought into the shop for checking out in the test
chamber. Then all that has to be done at the airplane is the static system
and transponder check after the altimeter and encoder are reinstalled.
Removing and reinstalling the altimeter and encoder can be a real nuisance
and costly if you have the shop do it. How easy is it going to be to remove
and reinstall the EFIS yourself?
OC
PS: The last time I insisted that the shop technician do the job in the
airplane (in very cold weather, but inside the hangar) he "couldn't get the
encoder to calibrate at the low end". He then proceeded to remove both the
altimeter and the encoder and took them into the nice warm toasty shop where
the encoder checked out perfectly in the chamber with no adjustment what
ever. I had to pay significant bucks because he did the extra work of
removing and reinstalling the encoder and the altimeter. Next time I'll go
back to removing and reinstalling those two items myself as I have done
previously and save that extra cost.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Preventive Maintenance |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0969 1.0000 -1.4111
Here's a question asked by an AOPA member who contacted our aviation
services staff through the AOPA Pilot Information Center. Test your
knowledge.
Question: I have an IFR-certified GPS in my aircraft. Is it required that I
make an entry into my aircraft's maintenance logbook every time I update the
database?
Answer: Yes. The FAA, under 14 CFR Part 43, Appendix A, defines what is
considered to be a major alteration, major repair, and preventive
maintenance. Updating a GPS database qualifies as preventive maintenance
that a person holding at least a private pilot certificate may perform in
this section. The FAA, under 14 CFR 91.407(a)(2), states that a maintenance
record entry must be made for any aircraft that is approved for return to
service after undergoing preventive maintenance. The entry should include,
as stated in 14 CFR 43.9(a), the date of completion of the work performed,
description of the work completed, your signature, pilot certificate grade,
and certificate number. For additional information on maintenance logbook
entries, see AOPA Online.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4986 1.0000 0.0000
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde,
Frank George (Corvallis)"
12/16/2005
Hello Frank, You raise a good point.
You wrote <<......skip.....In any case, I thought the 2 year VFR cert was a
transponder only
test...And IFR was the encoder/pitot/static test??....skip......>>
I think that whether or not the VFR cert gets involved with the altitude
encoder or not depends upon the interpretation of FAR Sec. 91.413 (b) which
reads: "Following any installation or maintenance on an ATC transponder
where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system
has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix
E, of part 43 of this chapter."
And the title of paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 reads: "(c) Automatic
Pressure Altitude Reporting Equipment and ATC Transponder System Integration
Test."
I have never had just a VFR certification alone performed on an airplane by
a shop so I don't know how they interpret 91.413 (b). Can anyone enlighten
me? Thanks.
OC
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
Hello OC,
I'm not eligible to answer that in full, in Europe we have an AD which
you have to comply with.
It is aimed at the gray code encoders as you have there many wires you
have to test the transponder for correct output any second year. serial
encoder/transponder combination are not impacted as there you see
immediately ok/nok, where the gray code would send wrong altitudes.
br Werner
bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Hinde,
>Frank George (Corvallis)"
>
>12/16/2005
>
>Hello Frank, You raise a good point.
>
>You wrote <<......skip.....In any case, I thought the 2 year VFR cert was a
>transponder only
>test...And IFR was the encoder/pitot/static test??....skip......>>
>
>I think that whether or not the VFR cert gets involved with the altitude
>encoder or not depends upon the interpretation of FAR Sec. 91.413 (b) which
>reads: "Following any installation or maintenance on an ATC transponder
>where data correspondence error could be introduced, the integrated system
>has been tested, inspected, and found to comply with paragraph (c), appendix
>E, of part 43 of this chapter."
>
>And the title of paragraph (c), appendix E, of part 43 reads: "(c) Automatic
>Pressure Altitude Reporting Equipment and ATC Transponder System Integration
>Test."
>
>I have never had just a VFR certification alone performed on an airplane by
>a shop so I don't know how they interpret 91.413 (b). Can anyone enlighten
>me? Thanks.
>
>OC
>
><front...As long as the thing has power/ground and a pressure it will
>show altitude.
>
>If I was faced with having to remove the EFIS I would probably make up a
>D sub with the apprpriate wires to save the shop any (expensive)
>confusion...:)
>
>In any case, I thought the 2 year VFR cert was a transponder only
>test...And IFR was the encoder/pitot/static test?? Frank>>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | NYTerminat(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
Listers
I have a quick question on the certification of the transponder/ encoder.
Does this have to be done before you can get a DAR or FAA sign off on your
experimental? Does the original certification of the new equipment count initially?
If not how does one get the plane to an airport that have an avionics shop
without first flying?
Thanks
Bob Spudis
CH-701/912s first start tomorrow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by:
NYTerminat(at)aol.com
<>
12/17/2005
Hello Bob, Good Questions.
<<1) Does this have to be done before you can get a DAR or FAA sign off on
your
experimental?>>
No, for two reasons: A) The inspector is basically inspecting your plane for
day VFR airworthiness. (He has no formal FAA requirement beyond this
capability). B) There are places / airspace where you can fly VFR with no
transponder. See FAR 91.215 (b). Your Phase one test area could be one of
these places as could your subsequent Phase two operations. (But Phase two
operations without a transponder could be very limiting).**
<<2) If not how does one get the plane to an airport that have an avionics
shop
without first flying?>>
FAR 91.215 (d) allows such deviations from the basic requirement rule. Many
shops have mobile test equipment and they can drive to your airport. For an
IFR cert I suggest that you remove and take both the altimeter and encoder
to their shop first for bench testing and calibration and then reinstall
them before having the mobile test equipment come to your airplane.
<<3) Does the original certification of the new equipment count initially?
Not really. Because in practice the installation itself is being tested. See
FAR Part 91.217 (b).
I suggest that a reading of FAR 91.215, 91.217, 91.411, 91.413 and
Appendices E and F of FAR Part 43 would help. It is a bit of a struggle to
read those parts and their relaionship. All are available on the FAA web
site.
OC
**PS: There is another reason also. Suppose you get your VFR or IFR cert
first, the plane doesn't pass the initial airworthiness inspection, and
there is delay before actually passing the inspection. Then all the time
between the date of cert and the eventual passed inspection and first flight
is a wasted portion of the two year period of the cert.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0354 1.0000 -1.7923
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Craig
Payne"
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?-- Craig>>
12/17/2005
Hello Craig, The Klein catalog stripper number 1004 (with spring) and 1003
(without spring) is a very inexpensive manually operated stripper that will
do a good job. http://www.kleintools.com/. No dies, grips, or fancy
semi-automation to worry about.
The key to using this stripper is to make sample strips of the wire to be
stripped, examine each sample strip with a magnifying glass and make stop
screw adjustments until you get just the right depth of cut or pinch (your
choice) of the insulation.
You need to go through this trial and error process for each different size
or brand of wire that you are stripping, but once the stop screw is properly
set for that particular wire then stripping is a fast process.
If you decide to be primarily pinching and tearing the tough Tefzel
insulation then a pair of pliers with smooth jaws can be used to hold the
wire to be stripped while pulling off the short piece of insulation to be
removed.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1256 1.0000 -1.2416
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Bill
Denton"
<>
12/18/2005
Hello Bill, Exactly the point I raised in my 12/15/2005 posting on this
subject----- "Removing and reinstalling the altimeter and encoder can be a
real nuisance and costly if you have the shop do it. How easy is it going to
be to remove and reinstall the EFIS yourself?"
It may be possible to build in both electronic and pressure / static
external connection points to your system as part of the initial
installation that would allow the shop technician to do his testing job
without removing the EFIS from the airplane.
But even if you do provide external test equipment connection points suppose
the encoder needs calibration adjustment? How is that done, or ever even
needed for a digital unit?
I would suggest that the owners of these kinds of units contact the unit
manufacturer and get the manufacturer's suggestions regarding the best way
to accomplish the IFR cert requirements.
Please pass on anything learned. Thanks.
OC
PS: It is obvious that my local shop much prefers that the altimeter and
encoder be brought into the shop and put into their chamber for testing, any
calibration, and data recording. Yes, they have the mobile equipment to do
it at plane side, but it is much more convenient / quicker / reliable for
them to have their expert inside bench guy do the testing and calibration in
the shop than have the mobile technician do it at plane side. The mobile
technician may even encounter "difficulties" that require the items to be
removed (at greater expense unless the customers does it) even if the
customer's intent is to have the entire test done at plane side.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
If you have normal pitot and static ports then normal test equipment can be
connected to those ports on the aircraft. The test equipment I have seen
generally has 'plug in' adapters to suit. Even though the EFIS is digital
there will be an analogue pressure sensor for both alt (static) and airspeed
(pitot) so you will have to know how to get at the adjustment for those two
items if they need correcting.
You will just have to forget about taking the equipment into the shop. In
anycase the 'on aircraft' test is much preferable since it checks for leaks
and stoppages in the pipework to the pitot/static system.
In Europe I believe, but can't be sure, it is obligatory to do the test on
the aircraft right from the pitot/static ports otherwise you are just
testing the instruments not the system.
John Rippengal.
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
>
> Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Bill
> Denton"
>
> < how is this type of
> checking done? It would be a real pain having to remove an EFIS every time
> the check was
> needed...>>
>
> 12/18/2005
>
> Hello Bill, Exactly the point I raised in my 12/15/2005 posting on this
> subject----- "Removing and reinstalling the altimeter and encoder can be a
> real nuisance and costly if you have the shop do it. How easy is it going
> to
> be to remove and reinstall the EFIS yourself?"
>
> It may be possible to build in both electronic and pressure / static
> external connection points to your system as part of the initial
> installation that would allow the shop technician to do his testing job
> without removing the EFIS from the airplane.
>
> But even if you do provide external test equipment connection points
> suppose
> the encoder needs calibration adjustment? How is that done, or ever even
> needed for a digital unit?
>
> I would suggest that the owners of these kinds of units contact the unit
> manufacturer and get the manufacturer's suggestions regarding the best way
> to accomplish the IFR cert requirements.
>
> Please pass on anything learned. Thanks.
>
> OC
>
> PS: It is obvious that my local shop much prefers that the altimeter and
> encoder be brought into the shop and put into their chamber for testing,
> any
> calibration, and data recording. Yes, they have the mobile equipment to do
> it at plane side, but it is much more convenient / quicker / reliable for
> them to have their expert inside bench guy do the testing and calibration
> in
> the shop than have the mobile technician do it at plane side. The mobile
> technician may even encounter "difficulties" that require the items to be
> removed (at greater expense unless the customers does it) even if the
> customer's intent is to have the entire test done at plane side.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Good "no nick" wire stripper? |
Try:
http://www.yardstore.com/index.cfm?action=DisplayMain
http://www.airpartsinc.com/
I bought a used one from Airparts for around $20 last summer.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Subject: Avionics-List: Good "no nick" wire stripper?
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Craig
Payne"
<http://www.aeroelectric.com/articles/strippers/strippers.html. Question
is:
where can I buy one? In most web stores it is hard to tell because the
wrong
ones with sharp cutting blades are hard to separate from the good ones
that
use notch-sensitivity to "pull" the insulation apart at a controlled
location. Any pointers to where I can find the "right" stripper?--
Craig>>
12/17/2005
Hello Craig, The Klein catalog stripper number 1004 (with spring) and
1003
(without spring) is a very inexpensive manually operated stripper that
will
do a good job. http://www.kleintools.com/. No dies, grips, or fancy
semi-automation to worry about.
The key to using this stripper is to make sample strips of the wire to
be
stripped, examine each sample strip with a magnifying glass and make
stop
screw adjustments until you get just the right depth of cut or pinch
(your
choice) of the insulation.
You need to go through this trial and error process for each different
size
or brand of wire that you are stripping, but once the stop screw is
properly
set for that particular wire then stripping is a fast process.
If you decide to be primarily pinching and tearing the tough Tefzel
insulation then a pair of pliers with smooth jaws can be used to hold
the
wire to be stripped while pulling off the short piece of insulation to
be
removed.
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Requesting Peer Review of Electrical Architecture |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0433 1.0000 -1.7424
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Jeff Smith
Lists: AeroElectric-List
Subject: Requesting Peer Review of Electrical Architecture
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/SMITHBKN@aol.com.12.25.2005/index.html>>
12/26/2005
Hello Jeff, It appears that when you are operating on the endurance bus only
(altitude encoder not functioning) that you will not be in compliance with
14 CFR Sec. 91.215. Do you concur? Is this of concern to you?
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KLN-89B Question |
| From: | <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov> |
I'm installing a used KLN89b in my RV. The unit checked out ok at a
local shop. However, when I went through the initial checks after
installation, I could not get any reception and the following error
messages; "No GPS Receiver Data" and "RCVR HW ERROR 0100" Since the
plane is not flying yet, I pulled the unit out of the rack and to
another local shop. Again it worked fine in their test setup. So I
suspect that either the antenna cable or the used KA-92 antenna that
came with the unit maybe a fault but don't know how to test the antenna.
(The cable tests ok for continuity) 1) Does anyone know what the
Honeywell 0100 error code means? 2) How can I test the antenna?
3) Any other ideas of what might cause this problem?
Thanks, George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Requesting Peer Review of Electrical Architecture |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.3422 1.0000 -0.1809
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: Kevin
Horton
12/27/2005
Hello Kevin, Thanks for your input.
<<1) You wrote: "But, this should only occur following an electrical
failure.">>
Right you are.
<<2) You wrote: "If we have to comply with all the FARs following a systems
failure,...skip...>>
My concern was not with the routine compliance with FAR's following a
systems failure. My concern was Jeff being in IMC, with an alternator
failure, depending upon battery reserve, being vectored by ATC to a nearby
safe letdown destination with terrain clearance a factor, and Jeff's
transponder not transmitting altitude information because his encoder was
not on the endurance bus.
Since 14 CFR Sec. 91.215 specifically requires a transponder to be putting
out altitude information that reference seemed to be the most succinct
wording to describe the altitude reporting requirement.
Jeff's email response to me was that he was moving his altitude encoder to
the endurance bus.
OC
< bus only (altitude encoder not functioning) that you will not be in
> compliance with 14 CFR Sec. 91.215. Do you concur? Is this of concern to
> you?>>
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David Lloyd" <skywagon(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: KLN-89B Question |
Were you doing the test inside a hanger?
I believe that code comes up when the GPS is not sending out position data
which will happen if the GPS antenna is shielded...i.e. inside a building.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov>
Subject: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
>
> I'm installing a used KLN89b in my RV. The unit checked out ok at a
> local shop. However, when I went through the initial checks after
> installation, I could not get any reception and the following error
> messages; "No GPS Receiver Data" and "RCVR HW ERROR 0100" Since the
> plane is not flying yet, I pulled the unit out of the rack and to
> another local shop. Again it worked fine in their test setup. So I
> suspect that either the antenna cable or the used KA-92 antenna that
> came with the unit maybe a fault but don't know how to test the antenna.
> (The cable tests ok for continuity) 1) Does anyone know what the
> Honeywell 0100 error code means? 2) How can I test the antenna?
>
> 3) Any other ideas of what might cause this problem?
>
>
> Thanks, George
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William Gill" <wgill10(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | KLN-89B Question |
Hello George,
Verify that you have the configuration module installed in the back of
your rack. If you don't know what I'm referring to, I could send a
couple of pictures to you directly.
Best regards,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov
Subject: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
I'm installing a used KLN89b in my RV. The unit checked out ok at a
local shop. However, when I went through the initial checks after
installation, I could not get any reception and the following error
messages; "No GPS Receiver Data" and "RCVR HW ERROR 0100" Since the
plane is not flying yet, I pulled the unit out of the rack and to
another local shop. Again it worked fine in their test setup. So I
suspect that either the antenna cable or the used KA-92 antenna that
came with the unit maybe a fault but don't know how to test the antenna.
(The cable tests ok for continuity) 1) Does anyone know what the
Honeywell 0100 error code means? 2) How can I test the antenna?
3) Any other ideas of what might cause this problem?
Thanks, George
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KLN-89B Question |
| From: | <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov> |
I should have mentioned that I was outside in the clear and I had a
handheld gps that was receiving four satellites. I also checked the
voltage on the antenna lead and unit was putting out the required 5
volts.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David
Lloyd
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
Were you doing the test inside a hanger?
I believe that code comes up when the GPS is not sending out position
data
which will happen if the GPS antenna is shielded...i.e. inside a
building.
David
----- Original Message -----
From: <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov>
Subject: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
>
> I'm installing a used KLN89b in my RV. The unit checked out ok at a
> local shop. However, when I went through the initial checks after
> installation, I could not get any reception and the following error
> messages; "No GPS Receiver Data" and "RCVR HW ERROR 0100" Since the
> plane is not flying yet, I pulled the unit out of the rack and to
> another local shop. Again it worked fine in their test setup. So I
> suspect that either the antenna cable or the used KA-92 antenna that
> came with the unit maybe a fault but don't know how to test the
antenna.
> (The cable tests ok for continuity) 1) Does anyone know what the
> Honeywell 0100 error code means? 2) How can I test the antenna?
>
> 3) Any other ideas of what might cause this problem?
>
>
> Thanks, George
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KLN-89B Question |
| From: | <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov> |
Hi Bill,
There is a small green plastic module with a stab connector mounted in
the back plate on the lower left side. I believe this is the
configuration module if I recall correctly form the install manual. Now
whether it is working properly is another matter.
Thanks,
George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of William
Gill
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
Hello George,
Verify that you have the configuration module installed in the back of
your rack. If you don't know what I'm referring to, I could send a
couple of pictures to you directly.
Best regards,
Bill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov
Subject: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
I'm installing a used KLN89b in my RV. The unit checked out ok at a
local shop. However, when I went through the initial checks after
installation, I could not get any reception and the following error
messages; "No GPS Receiver Data" and "RCVR HW ERROR 0100" Since the
plane is not flying yet, I pulled the unit out of the rack and to
another local shop. Again it worked fine in their test setup. So I
suspect that either the antenna cable or the used KA-92 antenna that
came with the unit maybe a fault but don't know how to test the antenna.
(The cable tests ok for continuity) 1) Does anyone know what the
Honeywell 0100 error code means? 2) How can I test the antenna?
3) Any other ideas of what might cause this problem?
Thanks, George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: KLN-89B Question |
George,
I had a lot of trouble when trying to install a KLN89B. The problem turned
out to be the rather short reach that the computer type pins have in their
connectors. I was used to the older type of avionics with the long flat
contacts. I found that it was easy for a very small piece of debris or a
slight misalignment of the panel to prevent the unit going fully home and
ensuring all the pins made contact.
Hope it is something as stupidly simple in your case!
John
From: <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> There is a small green plastic module with a stab connector mounted in
> the back plate on the lower left side. I believe this is the
> configuration module if I recall correctly form the install manual. Now
> whether it is working properly is another matter.
>
> Thanks,
> George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0683 1.0000 -1.5857
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by: "John
Rippengal"
12/28/2005
Hello John, Thanks for your input. By pursuing this issue in some detail I
am trying to avoid the circumstance where a builder discovers too late that
he has created an installation that is a costly nuisance every two years at
IFR cert time. Just "betting on the come" doesn't appeal to me and I assume
that there are other builders that may feel the same way.
<<1) You wrote: "If you have normal pitot and static ports then normal test
equipment can be connected to those ports on the aircraft.">>
The pitot tube and its plumbing should not play a role in the static system
check unless there is a defect inside the airspeed indicator that allows a
leak through between the pitot pressure chamber and the static pressure
chamber in that instrument.
<<2) You wrote: "In anycase the 'on aircraft' test is much preferable since
it checks for leaks and stoppages in the pipework to the pitot/static
system."
The 'on aircraft test' is not just preferable, it is mandatory. See CFR 14
Sec. 91.217 (b) "Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and
calibrated.....skip....." and CFR 14 Appendix E to Part 43 (c) "....skip...
to ensure that the altitude reporting equipment, altimeters, and ATC
transponders perform their intended functions as installed in the aircraft."
I agree that by far the best circumstance is if the technician agrees to
start the test on plane, has compatible test equipment and encounters no
problems during all phases of the test. But what if after starting the
testing he gets some indeterminate results and can't decide whether it is
the installation, the encoder, or the altimeter that is causing the problem?
The result can be some costly trouble shooting. Whereas if the altimeter and
encoder had been chamber tested by a bench technician prior to the on plane
testing then those two items are eliminated as the source of any problems.
OC
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Mini-EFIS Panel Considerations |
Well I was aware that the pitot and the static systems are not connected but
the guy who has the precision pressure gauges - both positive and negative -
is usually the one who does both systems and both should be done from the
pitot and static ports.
The word I used was 'obligatory' rather than 'mandatory' for licensing
purposes in Europe.
There is no escaping the problem of having a number of instruments included
all in one box but at least a reasonable design should allow for easy
unplugging and removal to a test bench. Like avionics now though the test
bench will probably have to be pretty sophisticated.
John
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
>
> Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by: "John
> Rippengal"
>
> 12/28/2005
>
> Hello John, Thanks for your input. By pursuing this issue in some detail I
> am trying to avoid the circumstance where a builder discovers too late
> that
> he has created an installation that is a costly nuisance every two years
> at
> IFR cert time. Just "betting on the come" doesn't appeal to me and I
> assume
> that there are other builders that may feel the same way.
>
> <<1) You wrote: "If you have normal pitot and static ports then normal
> test
> equipment can be connected to those ports on the aircraft.">>
>
> The pitot tube and its plumbing should not play a role in the static
> system
> check unless there is a defect inside the airspeed indicator that allows a
> leak through between the pitot pressure chamber and the static pressure
> chamber in that instrument.
>
> <<2) You wrote: "In anycase the 'on aircraft' test is much preferable
> since
> it checks for leaks and stoppages in the pipework to the pitot/static
> system."
>
> The 'on aircraft test' is not just preferable, it is mandatory. See CFR 14
> Sec. 91.217 (b) "Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and
> calibrated.....skip....." and CFR 14 Appendix E to Part 43 (c)
> "....skip...
> to ensure that the altitude reporting equipment, altimeters, and ATC
> transponders perform their intended functions as installed in the
> aircraft."
>
> I agree that by far the best circumstance is if the technician agrees to
> start the test on plane, has compatible test equipment and encounters no
> problems during all phases of the test. But what if after starting the
> testing he gets some indeterminate results and can't decide whether it is
> the installation, the encoder, or the altimeter that is causing the
> problem?
> The result can be some costly trouble shooting. Whereas if the altimeter
> and
> encoder had been chamber tested by a bench technician prior to the on
> plane
> testing then those two items are eliminated as the source of any problems.
>
> OC
>
>
> < be connected to those ports on the aircraft. The test equipment I have
> seen
> generally has 'plug in' adapters to suit. Even though the EFIS is digital
> there will be an analogue pressure sensor for both alt (static) and
> airspeed
> (pitot) so you will have to know how to get at the adjustment for those
> two
> items if they need correcting.
> You will just have to forget about taking the equipment into the shop. In
> anycase the 'on aircraft' test is much preferable since it checks for
> leaks
> and stoppages in the pipework to the pitot/static system.
> In Europe I believe, but can't be sure, it is obligatory to do the test on
> the aircraft right from the pitot/static ports otherwise you are just
> testing the instruments not the system. John Rippengal>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KLN-89B Question |
| From: | <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov> |
Thanks John,
I seem to have good connections so far with no problem getting
everything to seat fully. The particular install test that failed is
limited to the antenna input. Since unit checked ok at the shop and I'm
getting voltage at the antenna end of the RG400 lead, I must assume that
it's the KA-92. But before I layout big bucks for a new antenna, I was
hoping to able to test this one myself. It looks like another trip to
the avionics shop is in order to test the antenna.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Rippengal
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
George,
I had a lot of trouble when trying to install a KLN89B. The problem
turned
out to be the rather short reach that the computer type pins have in
their
connectors. I was used to the older type of avionics with the long flat
contacts. I found that it was easy for a very small piece of debris or a
slight misalignment of the panel to prevent the unit going fully home
and
ensuring all the pins made contact.
Hope it is something as stupidly simple in your case!
John
From: <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> There is a small green plastic module with a stab connector mounted in
> the back plate on the lower left side. I believe this is the
> configuration module if I recall correctly form the install manual.
Now
> whether it is working properly is another matter.
>
> Thanks,
> George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: KLN-89B Question |
Looks as though you are right George. Pity about the cheap antenna
escalating in price because of certification.
John
From: <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov>
>
> Thanks John,
>
> I seem to have good connections so far with no problem getting
> everything to seat fully. The particular install test that failed is
> limited to the antenna input. Since unit checked ok at the shop and I'm
> getting voltage at the antenna end of the RG400 lead, I must assume that
> it's the KA-92. But before I layout big bucks for a new antenna, I was
> hoping to able to test this one myself. It looks like another trip to
> the avionics shop is in order to test the antenna.
>
> George
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | KLN-89B Question |
| From: | <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov> |
Sometimes you get lucky. But in most cases (like this one) the most you
can expect, is to get is what you pay for.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Rippengal
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: KLN-89B Question
Looks as though you are right George. Pity about the cheap antenna
escalating in price because of certification.
John
From: <George.Kuehn(at)dot.gov>
>
> Thanks John,
>
> I seem to have good connections so far with no problem getting
> everything to seat fully. The particular install test that failed is
> limited to the antenna input. Since unit checked ok at the shop and
I'm
> getting voltage at the antenna end of the RG400 lead, I must assume
that
> it's the KA-92. But before I layout big bucks for a new antenna, I was
> hoping to able to test this one myself. It looks like another trip to
> the avionics shop is in order to test the antenna.
>
> George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "JAC" <Joetul(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin 340 Stereo Input Pinout. |
Avionics shop installed a Garmin 340 audio panel several years ago but
left off the stereo input. Is there a simple solution to DIY the stereo
input?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Roberto Honorato" <roberto.honorato(at)williamaeronautica.com.br> |
| Subject: | Garmin 340 Stereo Input Pinout. |
Hello,
You need to pass one more wire to each phone jack.
You also have to install a mono/stereo switch in the panel, because if you
connect a monophone the stereo will be lost in all the phones.
The best option is to use shielded cable.
I can send you the wiring, let me know in pvt if you want.
Have a good one
Roberto
-----Mensagem original-----
De: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] Em nome de JAC
Enviada em: quinta-feira, 29 de dezembro de 2005 19:12
Para: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
Assunto: Avionics-List: Garmin 340 Stereo Input Pinout.
Avionics shop installed a Garmin 340 audio panel several years ago but
left off the stereo input. Is there a simple solution to DIY the stereo
input?
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wes Bunker" <wesbflyer(at)surewest.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RES: Garmin 340 Stereo Input Pinout. |
Of course, with STEREO IN, one would like STEREO OUT as well. That will
require not only some extra wire to the HP jacks, but stereo phones too.
Mono phones and jacks will work with a stereo signal, you just don't have
the stereo effect. If you rewire the jacks, you need to replace the jacks
too, stereo are different from mono. Once you have the stereo jacks in, mono
phones will only reproduce one side of the sound, unless you put in a switch
to combine both signals and feed them to both L and R channels. Man, this
gets complicated-er and complicated-er! Brings back fond memories of my
years as a tech!
Wes
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements/Ambiguity |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.4620 1.0000 0.0000
12/31/2005
Hello Ken Thomas (Virken), Thank you for a very interesting email (copied
below).
I will attempt to answer in pieces, but let me start with a summary answer:
"As long as your amateur built experimental aircraft is in compliance with
its Operating Limitations (which includes references to complying with
FAR's) and the instructions in the current version of the AIM you are legal
to fly IFR with no further aircraft approval or paperwork from the FAA."
<<1) You wrote: "In reading the airworthiness certificate and the airframe
sign-off from the
FSDO, I see no verbiage like you listed below in "Operating Limitations".
The signoff simply says the FSDO issued an "...experimental Airworthiness
Certificate in the Amateur Built category, in accordance with FAR
21.191(g)..." So I'm wondering...1. is something missing, or am I "good to
go" as you indicated below that a specific signoff for IFR is
unnecessary">>
Something may be missing. By "airframe sign-off" do you mean the entry in
the aircraft log book that is made by the inspector at the time of the
initial inspection? If that is all that you have in addition to the pink
original FAA Form 8130-7 Special Airworthiness Certificate then you are
missing the Operating Limitations portion of the Special Airworthiness
Certificate that should have accompanied the original Form 8130-7
certificate when it was issued.
If in fact the Operating Limitations for your aircraft is missing you should
try to obtain a copy from either the person you bought the airplane from or
the FSDO that issued the orginal airworthiness certificate. Both the Form
8130-7 Certificate and the Operating Limitations, which is considered part
of the certificate, are to be carried in the aircraft at all times.
If you have the Operating Limitations, but paragraph 7 regarding "day VFR
only unless appropriately equipped in accordance with 91.205" is missing
then I don't see any prohibition against IFR flight for your aircraft if it
is properly equipped. I say this because the FARs are written in prohibition
form "...no person may unless xxxxxx" rather than permissable form. If
something is not prohibited then its OK to do it.
A specific "IFR signoff" for your amateur built experimental aircraft is not
required.
<<2) You wrote: "2. there's also ambiguity around whether an "IFR Approach
Certified GPS" is
required for GPS approaches; I read the statement from the EAA and it wasn't
explicit, and it also noted that none of the equipment needs to be TSO'd.
Well, if that's the case, then why would you need a TSO'd IFR GPS (which I
believe is the only way they make them). Do you know the answer here?">>
You are beginning to mix together different issues above. Let me try to sort
them out.
<<"there's also ambiguity around whether an "IFR Approach Certified GPS" is
required for GPS approaches;">>
This issue is not related to whether the aircraft involved is type
certificated or an amateur built experimental. You can go to paragraph
1-1-19. d. of the current version of the AIM on the FAA web site and read
the requirements for yourself. No need to depend upon hearsay, rumor, or
gossip.
<<"I read the statement from the EAA and it wasn't explicit, and it also
noted that none of the equipment needs to be TSO'd.">>
Yes and no. Since there are no published certification standards for amateur
built experimental aircraft there is no need for installed equipment,
instruments, or avionics to meet FAA TSO requirements. That is true of most
items on an amateur built experimental aircraft, but, and this is a huge
but, there are certain items in any aircraft, type certificated or amateur
built experimental, that must interface with other aircraft or other parts
of the ATC system.
Some examples are transponders, ELTs, communication radios, and GPS. One is
permitted to have non FAA TSO'd equipment for these kinds of items, but the
regulations, the TSO itself, or AIM say in some cases that certain items
must comply with FAA TSO requirements. That means that you could go build
your own, but the FAA has the right to ask you to prove that it meets the
FAA TSO requirements. Since that would be a very demanding thing to do the
logical path for most people is to just buy and install a FAA TSO'd item for
those items that are specifically required to meet FAA TSO requirements. A
careful reading of the FARs or the AIM may be required to determine which
items fall into that category.
<<"Well, if that's the case, then why would you need a TSO'd IFR GPS (which
I
believe is the only way they make them). Do you know the answer here?">>
You need an FAA TSO'd IFR GPS, or a GPS that you can prove meets that FAA
TSO requirements for any aircraft, type certificated or amateur built
experimental, in order to fly IFR GPS because the AIM says that you do.
"AIM 1-1-19. d. General Requirements 1. Authorization to conduct any GPS
operation under IFR requires that: (a) GPS navigation equipment used must be
approved in accordance with the requirements specified in Technical Standard
Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or equivalent............."
OC
PS: What is a Virken? Sounds like it might be related to the Gherkin pickle.
----- Original Message -----
From: "ken thomas" <virken(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: IFR Requirements/Ambiguity
> Hello OC,
>
> I read with interest your post (reproduced below) re. equipping an
> experimental aircraft for IFR application, and I'm hoping you can help to
> resolve some remaining ambiguity. Thank you for giving it a shot :)
>
> I purchased a completed Glastar experimental aircraft equipped with a
> navcom and indicator making it suitable for vor/localizer approaches, and
> I added marker beacons/audio panel, a 2nd navcom, and a Lowrance GPS. It
> also has a full compliment of steam gauges and other systems required for
> IFR flight.
>
> In reading the airworthiness certificate and the airframe sign-off from
> the FSDO, I see no verbiage like you listed below in "Operating
> Limitations". The signoff simply says the FSDO issued an "...experimental
> Airworthiness Certificate in the Amateur Built category, in accordance
> with FAR 21.191(g)..."
>
> So I'm wondering...
> 1. is something missing, or am I "good to go" as you indicated below that
> a specific signoff for IFR is unnecessary
>
> 2. there's also ambiguity around whether an "IFR Approach Certified GPS"
> is required for GPS approaches; I read the statement from the EAA and it
> wasn't explicit, and it also noted that none of the equipment needs to be
> TSO'd. Well, if that's the case, then why would you need a TSO'd IFR GPS
> (which I believe is the only way they make them). Do you know the answer
> here?
>
> Thank you in advance for any clarity you can provide.
>
> Virken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: IFR Requirements/Ambiguity |
In a message dated 12/31/05 7:38:16 AM, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
> "AIM 1-1-19. d. General Requirements 1. Authorization to conduct any GPS
> operation under IFR requires that: (a) GPS navigation equipment used must be
> approved in accordance with the requirements specified in Technical Standard
> Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or equivalent............."
>
I don't mean to be splitting hairs (well, maybe I do) but, since the AIM (and
the Advisory Circulars) are information only, and not federal regulations, is
it 'really' illegal to use a non-IFR approved GPS?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements/Ambiguity |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1523 1.0000 -1.0881
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by:
TeamGrumman(at)aol.com
<< Team Grumman wrote "I don't mean to be splitting hairs (well, maybe I do)
but, since the AIM (and the Advisory Circulars) are information only, and
not federal regulations, is
it 'really' illegal to use a non-IFR approved GPS?">>
1/1/2006
Hello Team Grumman, I am pleased that you raised this issue. Here is my take
on it:
1) Some Advisory Circulars contain the words "Material in this AC is neither
mandatory or regulatory".
The AIM Preface contains this wording: "This publication, while not
regulatory, provides information which reflects examples of operating
techniques and procedures which may be requirements in other federal
publications or regulations. It is made available solely to assist pilots in
executing their responsibilities required by other publications."
So one could logically conclude that an a priori failure to comply with an
AC or the AIM is not "really illegal".
2) Now let's shift into the real world. Suppose a pilot is involved in an
incident, ramp check,** or accident wherein an AC or the AIM has been
violated and the FAA decides to suspend or revoke the pilot's license.
The pilot appeals to an NTSB judge and the FAA cites 14 CFR Sec. 91.13 (a)
"....No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so
as to endanger the life or property of another." and 14 CFR Sec. 91.103
"Preflight action. Each pilot in command shall, before bginning a flight,
become familiar with all available information concerning that flight." to
support their case.
How do you suppose the NTSB judge is going to rule?
OC
**PS: I recently sat in an audience and listened to the head ASI (Aviation
Safety Inspector) from an FAA FSDO tell how she had been itching for a long
time to run a ramp check on a hot air balloon (the "notch in my pistol grip"
syndrome) and how disappointed she was that she could not find a thing wrong
when she finally got her chance to inspect one. I have also heard stories
(second hand) of ASI's waiting at an airport with a low ceiling or
visibility and interrogating pilots that have just landed.With a mind set
like that among some FAA employees I am not willing to violate an AC or the
AIM without a very deliberate "risk versus reward" examination of the
situation.
PPS: What is a "Team Grumman"?
> In a message dated 12/31/05 7:38:16 AM, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
> "AIM 1-1-19. d. General Requirements 1. Authorization to conduct any GPS
> operation under IFR requires that: (a) GPS navigation equipment used must
> be
> approved in accordance with the requirements specified in Technical
> Standard
> Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or equivalent............."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brianstanley <brianstanley(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Toruble shooting Radio |
My No 1 com has developed a loss of audio at takeoff or any time full
power is applied so I think it's something to do with the vibration, it
doesn't happen at cruise settings or idle. Transmission remains OK but
the reception keeps breaking up. The No 2 com doesn't do it so I've
ruled out headsets and audio jack. I've tried swapping radios and that
doesn't help Any suggestions how best to troubleshoot this. Could it be
the connections from the radio to the audio panel or in the audio panel
itself?
Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Freeman <flyeyes(at)mac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Toruble shooting Radio |
This symptom is fairly common at high speeds and/or power settings,
and can be caused by breaking squelch on the intercom. It is
especially common if you have an unused headset plugged in, but the
pilot's mike can break squelch too.
Try turning off your intercom to see if this addresses the problem.
My apologies if you've already thought of this.
James Freeamn
On Jan 1, 2006, at 11:17 AM, brianstanley wrote:
>
>
> My No 1 com has developed a loss of audio at takeoff or any time full
> power is applied so I think it's something to do with the vibration,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1070 1.0000 -1.3506
1/2/2005
For all of us believers in the magic of GPS and modern avionics please read
the below cautionary tale:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/en/reports/air/2003/A03F0114/A03F0114.asp
My flight time over the ocean is not that great, but the terror that wells
up when one has been out of sight of land for hours and is uncertain of
their position is huge.
Particularly note the diagram at the end of this article. Imagine the
decision process / courage involved in making that greater than 270 degree
turn to the right.
OC
PS: All pilots flying around IFR with out dated GPS data bases should read
this article.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin 340 Stereo Input Pinout. |
Yes, just pin out the stereo input, L, R, and Common with a direct
connection to your stereo Line Output (not amplified) or a stereo socket
for an MP3 type player. This is very strait forward. One question, has
your unit been wired for stereo output?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of JAC
Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin 340 Stereo Input Pinout.
Avionics shop installed a Garmin 340 audio panel several years ago but
left off the stereo input. Is there a simple solution to DIY the stereo
input?
--
12/29/2005
--
1/2/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Memory Card for Apollo GX60 |
Hi all,
My GX60 takes a 4mb PCMCIA card, made by AMD. I was wondering if these
cards are generic, or does each manufacturer have a unique driver for there
card.
The reason I am asking is that I often see 4mb cards on eBay, but I have yet
to see an AMD card. If I was to buy a new cards from Garmin it would
probably run $150.00.
The X60 is installed in an experimental aircraft.
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Memory Card for Apollo GX60 |
I talked to the techs about this.....I was told that they commissioned a special
version of linear flash memory cards that were only sold to Garmin. You can't
buy them from the manufacturer under a proprietary agreement with Garmin.
This was confirmed when I bought the update service from Jeppesen and talked with
their techs.....
Check the archives - when you get updates from Jeppesen from now on you need a
bigger card than what originally came with the unit.......
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul McAllister <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
>Sent: Jan 8, 2006 8:28 PM
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Avionics-List: Memory Card for Apollo GX60
>
>
>Hi all,
>
>My GX60 takes a 4mb PCMCIA card, made by AMD. I was wondering if these
>cards are generic, or does each manufacturer have a unique driver for there
>card.
>
>The reason I am asking is that I often see 4mb cards on eBay, but I have yet
>to see an AMD card. If I was to buy a new cards from Garmin it would
>probably run $150.00.
>
>The X60 is installed in an experimental aircraft.
>
>Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | All New BBS Interface For Matronics List Forums! |
Dear Listers,
I'm very proud to announce a completely new BBS interface is now available for
all of the Email Lists at Matronics! This is a full-featured system that allows
for viewing, posting, attachments, polls - the works.
But the best part is that it is *completely* integrated with all of the existing
email tools currently available at Matronics! What this means at the most basic
level is that, if you post a message to List from Email in the traditional
way, it will show up on the BBS system *and* get distributed to everyone currently
subscribed to the Email List. By the same token, if you are on the BBS
and post a message to a given List-Forum, the message will not only show up on
the BBS, but also be distributed to everyone on the Email List!!
It is really a very nice implementation and I am very pleased with its operation.
All of the tools you have come to know and love such as the List Search Engine
and List Browse and Download will still be available and contain all of the
latest posts. Think of the new BBS interface as just another method of accessing
the all of the Lists.
You can use the BBS to view all of the latest posts without having to do anything
except use your browser to surf over to the site. You can view and look at
all of the various List's posts. If you want to post a new message or reply
to an existing message from the BBS, you will have to Register on the BBS. This
is a *very* simple process and will only take a couple of minutes. There is
a small icon in the upper righthand side of the main BBS page labeled "Register"
to get you started.
I strongly recommend that you use the exact *same* email address you are subscribed
to the Email Lists with when registering on the BBS. Also, while not an
absolute requirement, I would really appreciate it if people would use their full
name when choosing their Username on the BBS (for example "Matt Dralle").
This just makes it easier for everyone to know who's posting. Also, I have enabled
the ability to upload a small user picture with your profile called an
"avatar". Please use a *real* picture of yourself *with* your cloths on! Thank
you! Maximum size of the bitmap is 120x120.
You can either be subscribed to the BBS, or any number of Email Lists, or both.
Registering on the BBS will allow you to email directly to all of the various
Lists. However, to receive direct List Email, you will need to be *subscribed*
to the various Lists as you have in the past. No changes here in operation.
I have added numerous links on the BBS pointing to the Email List subscription
page.
I've had the BBS connected to the Lists for about a week now, so its already loaded
up with a fair number of messages. You can post photos and other documents
directly to the BBS and links to them will appear in the List Email distributions.
Also, when any messages posted to the BBS are viewed in the List Email
distribution, there will be a URL link at the bottom of the message pointing
back to the BBS.
And here's what you've been waiting for -- the main URL for the new Matronics Email
List BBS is:
http://forums.matronics.com
Please surf on over, Register, and have a great time! I think this will be the
dawn of a whole new era for the Lists at Matronics!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Cc: ,
1/11/2006
Hello Wayne, I'll give it a shot. (See Wayne's request copied below).
1) You wrote: "......skip..... the unit must meet the the guidelines per
TSO-C129, however changing they may be."
The current version of TSO-C129 is TSO C129a dated 2/20/1996. It has been
almost 10 years since there have been any changes to that TSO. So any
argument that one tries to make that compliance is difficult because of
changes to the TSO is not very valid.
I also think that it is rather useless for individuals to talk about
compliance with a TSO or equivalent. TSO's are basically shell documents and
the real guts of a TSO lies in all the technical references that a TSO
usually contains. (TSO-C129a is much better than most in that regard -- it
actually has some specific content.) Even if an individual spent all the
money and time to assemble all the references it would then take tremendous
technical, financial, and material resources to attempt to comply with them
and to prove to the FAA that you were complying with them.
The fact of the matter is that individuals either comply with TSO-C129a by
buying a box so labeled or they are not in compliance. It is much more
relevant to be discussing an individual's compliance with the FAR's and the
AIM.
2) You wrote: " We have a fellow who thinks he can use the GPS in a Blue
Mountain EFIS 1 for primary nav in the enroute phase."
3) The Blue Mountain web site FAQ list contains this: "Question: Is EFIS/One
certified for GPS approaches?
Answer: On the advice of our most trusted avionics dealer and partner, we
have decided not to pursue it. For what it will cost to do TSO C129A testing
and certification, we'd have to raise the price of the EFIS by more than the
cost of a high-volume certified unit. We think it's a better deal to have a
reasonably priced glass cockpit, and the interconnect available for those
who want to fly GPS approaches. If you have a certified GPS, you can plug it
in to drive the flight director and autopilot in approach mode."
So that clearly establishes that the Blue Mountain EFIS does not meet the
criteria of TSO-C129a.
4) Your subject line says GPS IFR flight.
AIM paragraph 1-1-19 d. 1. says "Authorization to conduct any GPS operation
under IFR requires that:
(a) "GPS navigation equipment used must be approved in accordance with the
requirements specified in Technical Standard Order (TSO) TSO-C129, or
equivalent,....skip...."
Note 4 to Table 1-1-6 in the AIM says "VFR and hand-held GPS systems are not
authorized for IFR navigation, instrument approaches, or as a primary
instrument flight reference. During IFR operations they may be considered
only an aid to situational awareness."
AIM paragraph 1-1-19 d. 1. (b) says "Aircraft using GPS navigation equipment
under IFR must be equipped with an approved and operational alternate means
of navigation appropriate to the flight."
CFR 14 Sec. 91.205 (d) (2) requires "Two-way radio communications system and
navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used."
Seems pretty clear to me that the GPS capability in a Blue Mountain EFIS
cannot be used as a primary means of IFR enroute navigation. If this fellow
has a counter argument I'd like to read it along with the pertinent
references.
5) But there is nothing stopping the fellow from launching off on a VOR
filed IFR flight plan and then working the ATC system to allow him to go as
direct as they and his GPS will allow him to. The gotcha is that he better
be ready to ready at any time to navigate by VOR.
OC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:55 PM
Subject: IFR GPS
>I need your insight again. We have a fellow who thinks he can use the GPS
> in a Blue Mountain EFIS 1 for primary nav in the enroute phase.
>
> I thought you and I discussed that the unit must meet the guidelines per
> TSO-C129, however changing they may be. And that the AC 20-138
> installation
> requirements are not regulatory to homebuilts. I think we established
> that
> the only GPS units that currently meet all these requirements are the
> big-boy Garmin, Kings, etc that are currently certified in certified
> aircraft.
>
> I told my buddy that Blue Mountain can't meet these.
>
> ====================
> L. Wayne Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Hi all,
I've been muddling through all the different EFIS's trying to decide which
one to put in my RV-7A. I'm leaning toward the Blue Mountain E-1, but
frankly, the company scares the hell out of me. I've even heard of several
new systems that have come to market (or are about to) over the last year.
I'd like to put together a comparison of features to help me with my
decision. Has anyone already done this? If you already have a spreadsheet
that you wouldn't mind sharing I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
I'm not at that stage yet and don't have a spreadsheet.
I would like to mention what I think is the most important feature of
all: is it failsafe.
Will it tell you when a function is not working? Or will it lie to you?
The more useful a function the more you rely on it. The more you rely on
it the greater the danger.
The failsafe feature involves the crosschecking of built-in redundancy
and must have been designed in from the beginning.
The alternative is to supply both the redundancy and the monitoring
externally yourself - increasing cost, workload.and insecurity.
Good luck.
Jan de Jong
Greg Vouga wrote:
>
>Hi all,
>
>I've been muddling through all the different EFIS's trying to decide which
>one to put in my RV-7A. I'm leaning toward the Blue Mountain E-1, but
>frankly, the company scares the hell out of me. I've even heard of several
>new systems that have come to market (or are about to) over the last year.
>I'd like to put together a comparison of features to help me with my
>decision. Has anyone already done this? If you already have a spreadsheet
>that you wouldn't mind sharing I would appreciate it.
>
>Thanks,
>Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: EFIS Comparisons |
I agree, reliability is definitely going to weigh in on my decision.
>From: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: EFIS Comparisons
>Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:08:52 +0100
>
>
>I'm not at that stage yet and don't have a spreadsheet.
>I would like to mention what I think is the most important feature of
>all: is it failsafe.
>Will it tell you when a function is not working? Or will it lie to you?
>The more useful a function the more you rely on it. The more you rely on
>it the greater the danger.
>The failsafe feature involves the crosschecking of built-in redundancy
>and must have been designed in from the beginning.
>The alternative is to supply both the redundancy and the monitoring
>externally yourself - increasing cost, workload.and insecurity.
>Good luck.
>Jan de Jong
>
>Greg Vouga wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I've been muddling through all the different EFIS's trying to decide
>which
> >one to put in my RV-7A. I'm leaning toward the Blue Mountain E-1, but
> >frankly, the company scares the hell out of me. I've even heard of
>several
> >new systems that have come to market (or are about to) over the last
>year.
> >I'd like to put together a comparison of features to help me with my
> >decision. Has anyone already done this? If you already have a
>spreadsheet
> >that you wouldn't mind sharing I would appreciate it.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Greg
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
Greg,
I have used most of the systems out there from the Dynon up to the
Honeywell systems. The system I settled on was the Chilton EFIS with a
Blue Mountain EFIS G-3 Lite as a backup. I also incorporated the
Trutrak Gyro stabilized Sorcerer autopilot as a standalone gyro
platform.
The reason for the Chilton was all the functions with the history of
reliability and customer satisfaction. I can't understate the number of
functions in the Chilton; here are a few that I thought were very
important. First the Chilton has full flight management including
Stars, Sid, Jet airways and Victor airways. It has every runway
approach and is very easy to use. For the VFR pilot this may not be
very important but for the IFR pilot no other EFIS comes close in the
price range. Another function is the ground mapping with obstacles,
these days more and more EFIS systems are offering this function but the
Chilton offers an additional feature, it has a terrain warning system
like the ground proximity on the airliners and transport aircraft. So
if you are running around and something pops up in front of you, you
will get a voice and visual command to pull up. This function is worth
its weight in gold if you fly in poor weather or at night. The Chilton
also offers full flight director function, full digital autopilot
integration with the Trutrak line, satellite weather, TIS traffic
warning, Storm Scope function, a performance gliding function which give
you information for gliding distance in the event of an engine failure.
This function is dynamic in that it corrects for wind, direction of
travel and height above terrain. The Chilton is also scaleable, you can
add as much redundancy as you can afford. You could have up to four
gyros, GPS's, and Air Data Computer if you wanted making it a standalone
system. The down side is cost. The basic two screen system with most
of the function listed above is around $27,000.
On to the Dynon, I have flown behind this unit in several aircraft. At
face value for the price it is a good unit. I have not had a failure
and it seems to perform good to fair. Sometimes it does strange things
in Yaw and Roll but seems to be stable overall. As far as the engine
monitor system I think it is a waste of money, there are many other
unites out their that are better and more readable such as the Grand
Rapids, Advanced Flight Systems AF-2500 (great unit), or the I-K
Technologies AIM-3000 or 4000. I would not consider the Dynon as a
primary for IFR but it would make a good backup or VFR unit.
The unit that I liked better then the Dynon for simple operations was
the Blue Mountain EFIS. On function that put the BM above the Dynon is
it's intergraded Nav GPS function. For a few hundred bucks you also get
a GPS with map and also a Nav interface for LOC/GS interface. The
performance of the small G3 over the old Lite is much improved. It is
on par with the Dynon for rates and stability, whereas the older unit
was a boat anchor. The EFIS one from BM is nice but it is pricey for
what you get. You have a unit that is not stand alone and never well be
with no flight management function. So it is a VFR navigator only. One
other thing to mention is that bigger is not always better, I fly an
Airbus to fund my small airplane interests and it has a smaller screen
then the BM. What I'm trying to say is that the BM looks good but
wastes precious panel space with the very large screen.
On to OP Technologies, from what I have seen this is a good unit that
has many functions of the Chilton for less money and they put it on your
choice of different size screens. I have briefly flown behind this unit
and find that it seems to work very well. The only issues I have heard
from owners is they are still teething with the software.
The Grand Rapids Technologies units are also a good choice for the
money. They have a little less on the function and the glitter but work
very well. I would say the GRT stability and reliability is almost on
par with the Chilton. The GRT is a little cruder but works very well.
A little note is that GRT has been making units for different companies
and has been in the business of Avionics for a long time, so they have a
good track record.
And lastly is Avidyne, very pricey but works well and like the Chilton
has a certified version. My personal opinion is that like Gamin the
Avidyne is not very ergonomic and can be difficult to use intuitively,
all and all very stable and reliable.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Vouga
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 9:03 PM
Subject: Avionics-List: EFIS Comparisons
Hi all,
I've been muddling through all the different EFIS's trying to decide
which
one to put in my RV-7A. I'm leaning toward the Blue Mountain E-1, but
frankly, the company scares the hell out of me. I've even heard of
several
new systems that have come to market (or are about to) over the last
year.
I'd like to put together a comparison of features to help me with my
decision. Has anyone already done this? If you already have a
spreadsheet
that you wouldn't mind sharing I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Greg
--
1/11/2006
--
1/11/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | EFIS Comparisons |
| From: | "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen(at)dts9000.com> |
Greg,
Chuck Jensen
Greg,
Mike's summary of the features and relative merits of the individual
company's (a VERY important instrument feature) as well as the dollar
value of each seems reasonably accurate and comprehensive.
I too canvassed the features of each of the listed units, though I did
not have the same operating experience as Mike. I came to the
conclusion that GRT EFIS represented the best value for high
reliability, excellent feature set and unquestioned company credibility.
After a few hundred hours of flying the dual GRT EFIS and TruTrak GSVS
A/P, I have nothing but satisfaction to report. Yes, the resolution on
the GRT screen is a bit low, but for PFD and engine information
purposes, its more than accurate. Depicting weather and terrain may
suffer a little, but unless you're a Freight Dog or fly a lot of heavy
IFR in heavy traffic area (i.e. if you flight plan Newark, NJ) you will
find it very satisfactory. Not quite as polished as the Chilton, but
then, you can buy a lot of avgas with the $17,000 difference.
Chuck
Velocity XLRG
Greg,
I have used most of the systems out there from the Dynon up to the
Honeywell systems. The system I settled on was the Chilton EFIS with a
Blue Mountain EFIS G-3 Lite as a backup. I also incorporated the
Trutrak Gyro stabilized Sorcerer autopilot as a standalone gyro
platform.
The reason for the Chilton was all the functions with the history of
reliability and customer satisfaction. I can't understate the number of
functions in the Chilton; here are a few that I thought were very
important. First the Chilton has full flight management including
Stars, Sid, Jet airways and Victor airways. It has every runway
approach and is very easy to use. For the VFR pilot this may not be
very important but for the IFR pilot no other EFIS comes close in the
price range. Another function is the ground mapping with obstacles,
these days more and more EFIS systems are offering this function but the
Chilton offers an additional feature, it has a terrain warning system
like the ground proximity on the airliners and transport aircraft. So
if you are running around and something pops up in front of you, you
will get a voice and visual command to pull up. This function is worth
its weight in gold if you fly in poor weather or at night. The Chilton
also offers full flight director function, full digital autopilot
integration with the Trutrak line, satellite weather, TIS traffic
warning, Storm Scope function, a performance gliding function which give
you information for gliding distance in the event of an engine failure.
This function is dynamic in that it corrects for wind, direction of
travel and height above terrain. The Chilton is also scaleable, you can
add as much redundancy as you can afford. You could have up to four
gyros, GPS's, and Air Data Computer if you wanted making it a standalone
system. The down side is cost. The basic two screen system with most
of the function listed above is around $27,000.
On to the Dynon, I have flown behind this unit in several aircraft. At
face value for the price it is a good unit. I have not had a failure
and it seems to perform good to fair. Sometimes it does strange things
in Yaw and Roll but seems to be stable overall. As far as the engine
monitor system I think it is a waste of money, there are many other
unites out their that are better and more readable such as the Grand
Rapids, Advanced Flight Systems AF-2500 (great unit), or the I-K
Technologies AIM-3000 or 4000. I would not consider the Dynon as a
primary for IFR but it would make a good backup or VFR unit.
The unit that I liked better then the Dynon for simple operations was
the Blue Mountain EFIS. On function that put the BM above the Dynon is
it's intergraded Nav GPS function. For a few hundred bucks you also get
a GPS with map and also a Nav interface for LOC/GS interface. The
performance of the small G3 over the old Lite is much improved. It is
on par with the Dynon for rates and stability, whereas the older unit
was a boat anchor. The EFIS one from BM is nice but it is pricey for
what you get. You have a unit that is not stand alone and never well be
with no flight management function. So it is a VFR navigator only. One
other thing to mention is that bigger is not always better, I fly an
Airbus to fund my small airplane interests and it has a smaller screen
then the BM. What I'm trying to say is that the BM looks good but
wastes precious panel space with the very large screen.
On to OP Technologies, from what I have seen this is a good unit that
has many functions of the Chilton for less money and they put it on your
choice of different size screens. I have briefly flown behind this unit
and find that it seems to work very well. The only issues I have heard
from owners is they are still teething with the software.
The Grand Rapids Technologies units are also a good choice for the
money. They have a little less on the function and the glitter but work
very well. I would say the GRT stability and reliability is almost on
par with the Chilton. The GRT is a little cruder but works very well.
A little note is that GRT has been making units for different companies
and has been in the business of Avionics for a long time, so they have a
good track record.
And lastly is Avidyne, very pricey but works well and like the Chilton
has a certified version. My personal opinion is that like Gamin the
Avidyne is not very ergonomic and can be difficult to use intuitively,
all and all very stable and reliable.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | BMA EFIS ON EBAY |
There's a BMA EFIS on ebay item number 4603954375 No it's not
mine just thought it may be of interest.
One thing I noticed in the pic's was the size of the AHRS computer
mannnn that thing is gigantic. If it is as big as it looks seems like it
woulb be a chore finding a place to mount it.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com> |
| Subject: | BMA EFIS ON EBAY |
It's big, but I think "gigantic" is waaay overstated. Mine fits between the
instrument panel and the baggage bulkhead of my RV-8A and leaves room for
the recessed screen between it and the panel (just barely) and most of the
room ahead of the panel is available for other instruments and radios. A
better location in the RV-8 might be behind the back seat, or in the front
baggage compartment. The dimensions shown on the website are 9" front to
back; 9.725" side to side and 4.08" tall. This doesn't include the
shock-mounting feet or space for wiring connectors. It must be oriented
correctly for the internal sensors to work properly.
Terry
RV-8A finishing
Seattle
There's a BMA EFIS on ebay item number 4603954375 No it's not
mine just thought it may be of interest.
One thing I noticed in the pic's was the size of the AHRS computer
mannnn that thing is gigantic. If it is as big as it looks seems like it
woulb be a chore finding a place to mount it.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BMA EFIS ON EBAY |
It looks a lot bigger in pic than the dimension's given on website.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 3:14 PM
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: BMA EFIS ON EBAY
>
> It's big, but I think "gigantic" is waaay overstated. Mine fits between
> the
> instrument panel and the baggage bulkhead of my RV-8A and leaves room for
> the recessed screen between it and the panel (just barely) and most of the
> room ahead of the panel is available for other instruments and radios. A
> better location in the RV-8 might be behind the back seat, or in the front
> baggage compartment. The dimensions shown on the website are 9" front to
> back; 9.725" side to side and 4.08" tall. This doesn't include the
> shock-mounting feet or space for wiring connectors. It must be oriented
> correctly for the internal sensors to work properly.
>
> Terry
> RV-8A finishing
> Seattle
>
>
> There's a BMA EFIS on ebay item number 4603954375 No it's not
> mine just thought it may be of interest.
> One thing I noticed in the pic's was the size of the AHRS
> computer
>
> mannnn that thing is gigantic. If it is as big as it looks seems like it
> woulb be a chore finding a place to mount it.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Cc: ,
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Richard
Sipp"
1/26/2006
Hello Dick, My Garmin GNS 430 came with an antenna and installation
instructions for the antenna that called for a large metal ground plane
under the antenna. I called the Garmin tech people and protested.
The technician said there was no real need for such a ground plane, but
suggested that if I was going to put the antenna under a fiberglass upper
cowling area near the engine that I mount it on a small metal shelf to help
screen the antenna from electromagnetic junk that might be radiated from
below.
This I did, ensuring that the antenna had a view clear of any metal
obstruction in the entire upper hemisphere. It has worked great.
OC
<>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TeamGrumman(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: GPS antennas |
In a message dated 1/26/06 4:36:57 AM, bakerocb(at)cox.net writes:
> This I did, ensuring that the antenna had a view clear of any metal
> obstruction in the entire upper hemisphere. It has worked great.
>
I put mine on the glare shield, near the windshield. No problems. Short
cord. No holes in the plane. No drag.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Six New Email Lists / Forums At Matronics! |
Dear Listers,
Its my pleasure to announce the addition of six new Email List / Forums to the
aviation line up at Matronics! These new lists support all the usual features
you've come to know and love from the Matronics Email List including full integration
with the All New Web BBS Forums Site!! The new Lists include:
LycomingEngines-List Textron/Lycoming Engines
RotaxEngines-List Rotax Engine for Aircraft
M14PEngines-List Vendenyev M14P Radial Engine
MurphyMoose-List Murphy Moose Aircraft
Allegro-List Allegro 2000, a Czech-built, Rotax-powered Aircraft
Falco-List Sequoia Aircraft's Falco Experimental
To sign up for any or all of the new Lists, surf over to the Matronics Email List
Subscription Form and follow the instructions:
http://www.matronics.com/subscribe
Don't forget to check out the All New Web BBS Forum now available along with all
of the usual message and archive viewing tools at the Matronics Email Lists
site. Surf over to the following URL for information on the BBS Forum:
http://forums.matronics.com
Enjoy the new Lists!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Mountain" <mountain4don(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Garmin SL40 intercom |
I am building a two seat sport aircraft, and bought a Garmin SL40 radio to
use for communications. I haven't installed it yet, but wonder how the
intercom system in the SL40 has worked out for others. I wasn't planning to
install any other nav radios or intercoms. I am going to use the Dynon EFIS
and engine monitering panels. And a transponder yet to be purchased. I
already have a Garmin 295 GPS I want to mount in the dash for navigation.
Is there anything else I need? We don't use the two VOR's in our current
Piper Cherokee, so I wasn't planning to install one of those.
Don
Zenith 601XL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Cunningham" <Joetul(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin SL40 intercom |
I used one for several years and for 2 place its as good as the
aftermarket units.
"
I am building a two seat sport aircraft, and bought a Garmin SL40 radio
to
use for communications. I haven't installed it yet, but wonder how the
intercom system in the SL40 has worked out for others. I wasn't
planning to
install any other nav radios or intercoms. I am going to use the Dynon
EFIS
and engine monitering panels. And a transponder yet to be purchased. I
already have a Garmin 295 GPS I want to mount in the dash for
navigation.
Is there anything else I need? We don't use the two VOR's in our
current
Piper Cherokee, so I wasn't planning to install one of those.
Don
Zenith 601XL
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how
to
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Cc:
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Automotive Strobes & LED replacement |
bulbs
2/2/2006
Responding to Wayne Hicks.
You wrote: "Just thought you'd like to know....."
Yes Wayne, I would like to know and I'd like other builders to know as well.
There are several lessons that can be learned from your input. Here are just
some, there are probably others:
1) There are gray areas that exist in interpreting and applying the
policies, procedures, and regulations that pertain to amateur built
experimental aircraft.
2) Individual inspectors have their own proclivities and because they
represent the FAA Administrator during the inspection they have considerable
power.
3) Individual FSDO's also have different interpretations of how things must
be done.
4) If a builder suspects that he might be on the cutting edge of some thing
that might raise the hair on the back of the neck of an inspector the
builder might be wise to check it out in advance and even shop around for a
more enlightened inspector.
5) We have a great privilege in being able to build and operate our amateur
built experimental aircraft in an environment that was created, and is being
run, by lawyers and bureaucrats that speak type certificated as a first
language and we should expect a few pot holes in the road from time to time.
6) Exterior lighting falls into the category of those things that don't
affect just the pilot or occupants of the builder's aircraft, but could also
affect the efficiency of the ATC system or the safety of other aircraft as
well. One should expect that category of things to be examined more closely
or even held to type certificated standards by some inspectors even though
the regulations don't specifically require that standard for amateur built
experimental aircraft.
7) The better we understand the rules and how they are being interpreted the
better chance we have of retaining our privilege even though we may get
abused from time to time. Ignorance of the rules, deliberately flouting
them, or arguing in a fashion that causes people outside the amateur built
community to believe that we are up to no good does not help our cause.
OC
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: Automotive Strobes & LED replacement bulbs
> Not so fast?
> I know what the rules are and how they are supposed to be interpreted.
> However, we recently had a Cozy III owner who was denied the ability for
> night flight because the DAR required him to have TSO'd lights. He
> didn't;
> he had the LED lights. So the DAR took it upon himself to write the
> restriction into the Cozy III op limits.
>
> The Cozy III builder appealed to the FSDO for his Kentucky region....and
> the
> FSDO upheld the DAR's decision!!!
>
> The Cozy III builder appealed to the EAA -- TO THE EAA -- who promptly
> said,
> "We don't want to get involved." (But we hope you did receive this month's
> glossy-covered magazine.)
>
> Just thought you'd like to know.....
>
> Wayne Hicks
>>--> AeroElectric-List message posted by:
>>
>>Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: John
> Markey
>>
>>
>>< were
>>the original
>>strobes when the FAA inspector signed the plane off for nighttime
>>VFR.....skip......>>
>>
>>2/2/2006
>>
>>Hello John, A common misconception. I will bet that the FAA inspector did
>>not sign anything that said that airplane was approved as is for night
>>time
>>VFR. What the inspector signed was a Special Airworthiness Certificate and
> a
>>set of Operating Limitations for that specific airplane that was part of
> the
>>Special Airworthiness Certificate for that plane.
>>
>>What the Operating Limitations said was "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."
>>
>>This put the responsibility for properly equipping that amateur built
>>airplane for night time VFR or instrument flight directly into the hands
>>of
>>the airplane builder. The FAA does not certify amateur built experimental
>>aircraft for these two conditions of flight because there are no published
>>certification standards for amateur built experimental aircraft.
>>
>>This subject has been discussed previously on the list. I have a table
>>that
>>I will send to any one requesting it that more fully describes the
>>requirements. That table has also been posted to the web sites of some
>>list
>>participants. Probably can find where in the archives.
>>
>>OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Mokry" <robmokry(at)covad.net> |
| Subject: | Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor |
Been having difficulties getting the monitor to talk to the Garmin 530 via
the RS232, has anyone else been able to make this work?
Thanks in advance,
Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor |
I set mine to "shadin protocol" and it works fine.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Mokry
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor
Been having difficulties getting the monitor to talk to the Garmin 530 via
the RS232, has anyone else been able to make this work?
Thanks in advance,
Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Scott <squiggles(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Cessna rt385a to in386a with r443b |
Hello All...
By chance does anyone have the pinout for the in-386a
glideslope indicator? Better yet would be how the
in-386a connects to a 443b glideslope receiver. Even
better would be how the in-386a, rt-385a radio, and
the r-443b glideslope receiver all get wired together.
I have the avionics installations manuals from
McCurtain for the 1974-1976 Cessnas. However, they do
not offer manuals for when the 385a and in386a's were
in use. Addionally, I purchased the r-443b and
rt-385a pinouts from Eastern Avionics. But, they did
not have the in-386a pinouts.
Any help in integrating the 443b with the 386a with
the rt-385a is most appreciated.
Thanx in advance...
-Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sportypilot" <sportypilot(at)stx.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cessna rt385a to in386a with r443b |
Need a quick measurement, I am building my modular pannel for my rv9a now
and cutting the center section
and needed to configure the sizes ect.. I don't have them yet but want to
leave plenty of room for the
garmin sl40 and GTX 330 , I have the width but need the hight of each of
these radio and transponder together..
since I don't have trays or anything I am just planning ahead, Making sure I
have the room for the
trim switches at the bottom.. and a 396 at the top with the air gizmo's 396
mount at the top.. thanks in advance..
Danny..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Mokry" <robmokry(at)covad.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor |
Thanks for the reply Bruce.
I've tried both shadin modes (fuel and fadec z) on the RMI at 9600 baud.
Are their any special settings on the 530 to look for?
Thanks Rob
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor
I set mine to "shadin protocol" and it works fine.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Mokry
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor
Been having difficulties getting the monitor to talk to the Garmin 530 via
the RS232, has anyone else been able to make this work?
Thanks in advance,
Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
| Subject: | RE: Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor |
You're quickly going beyond my level of expertise. I would suggest you call
Ron at RMI, he's a helpful guy.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Mokry
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:07 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor
Thanks for the reply Bruce.
I've tried both shadin modes (fuel and fadec z) on the RMI at 9600 baud.
Are their any special settings on the 530 to look for?
Thanks Rob
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org>
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor
I set mine to "shadin protocol" and it works fine.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rob Mokry
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin 530/430 - Rocky Mountain Monitor
Been having difficulties getting the monitor to talk to the Garmin 530 via
the RS232, has anyone else been able to make this work?
Thanks in advance,
Rob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
Cc: ,
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "bob noffs"
2/10/2006
Hello Bob, Dare I post some heresy? Will the gummint sic its watch dogs on
me? Will the electromagnetic radiation purists on the list rise up in total
fury to slap me down? Well, I'll take a chance.
Suppose that the gummint, in its infinite wisdom, mandated that every
aircraft carry 3 pounds of butter and a container of maple syrup just in
case the survival situation after crashing resulted in a supply of pancakes
as the available food supply. Would you insist on carrying genuine maple
syrup or would an imitation be good enough for you?
Maybe an ELT is a little more useful than butter and maple syrup in a crash
situation, but I sure as hell wouldn't place my entire faith in being found
and rescued in one of the garden variety ELT's that we are mandated to
carry. My point is that obsessing over antenna ground plane details is
wasted time.
Nobody knows exactly what attitude their aircraft will be in when it
finishes crashing. The ELT antenna could end up pointing directly down at,
and a few inches from, the surface of the earth. How much difference would a
perfect ground plane, if one could construct one, make in that situation?
Here is my thinking:
1) To be legal, buy one of the garden variety ELT's that we are mandated to
carry. Install it securely in the proper location in the proper attitude
with regard to its deceleration sensor. Fasten on the wire antenna that came
with the ELT and don't obsess over ground planes or what the antenna's
attitude will be when you finish crashing. Go fly.
2) If you want to take some truly effective steps for rescue after crashing
you can, and probably should to the degree that you are concerned and
considering routes of flight, do some or all of the following.
2A) Always carry a hand held VHF comm radio with a battery supply that you
KNOW to be capable of extended operation.
2B) Always carry a cell phone with a battery supply that you KNOW to be
capable of extended operation.
2C) Purchase and carry a PLB http://www.equipped.com/faq_plb/default.asp
2D) Carry a tough plastic container of water -- size your choice. My
experience with even short time rescued people is that they experienced an
almost mentally debilitating thirst shortly after crashing.
2E) Carry a knife of enough size and sturdiness to punch through / crack
your plastic windows and canopy.
I am sure that other posters will add their favorite / essential crash
survival items, but obsessing over these items falls into the same category
of time wasting like obsessing over ground planes. Take what you deem to be
reasonable precautions to be rescued after a survivable crash and then
proceed to fly worry and guilt free (and legal).
OC
PS: If you have the bank account to afford one of the new 406 Mhz ELT's, go
for it.
<< hi all, I have several antennas to install. My elt requires a ground
plane. Tim at b and
c was very helpful with my questions but i question leads to 5 more. Is
there
any way around a ground plane for the elt? If not, any suggestions on how to
make it in my wood/cloth fuselage? At first i thought numerous strips of
thin
copper way the way to go but that looks like just more fasteners. Can a very
thin sheet be laid down in the fuse. bottom? It wouldnt exactly be flat with
all the woodworking to go around.....skip.....Thanks in advance, bob noffs>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | A Better PLB Web Site |
2/10/2006
I wish that I had included this web site in my response to Bob Noffs'
question about making a ground plane for an ELT antenna.
http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html
Here is an extract from that site regarding our currently government
mandated ELT's:
"Unfortunately, these have proven to be highly ineffective. They have a 97%
false alarm rate, activate properly in only 12% of crashes, and provide no
identification data."
OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rueb, Duane" <ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu> |
OC.
Well, now on the topic of the Maple syrup that we should carry,
even though my own preference would be for the genuine stuff, the
imitation would be more practical due to storage considerations, now, of
course, we know that refrigeration is required for the genuine after
opening, and is even a good idea with the fake stuff, but who can
guarantee that some hungry passenger, or pilot, would not have violated
the seal and had a taste before we had our emergency event. Wow, these
things do get complicated. Good we have the Gummint working on this for
us.
On a serious vein, what is the advantage of the 406 Mhz ones, is
it just the smaller dimensions needed for antenna and ground plane? Or
is there some other factor involved?
Duane Rueb, KF6GYB & PG-12-32627, also Kitfox N24ZM
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 7:27 AM
Cc: avionics-list(at)matronics.com; aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Avionics-List: antennas
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "bob
noffs"
2/10/2006
Hello Bob, Dare I post some heresy? Will the gummint sic its watch dogs
on
me? Will the electromagnetic radiation purists on the list rise up in
total
fury to slap me down? Well, I'll take a chance.
Suppose that the gummint, in its infinite wisdom, mandated that every
aircraft carry 3 pounds of butter and a container of maple syrup just in
case the survival situation after crashing resulted in a supply of
pancakes
as the available food supply. Would you insist on carrying genuine maple
syrup or would an imitation be good enough for you?
Maybe an ELT is a little more useful than butter and maple syrup in a
crash
situation, but I sure as hell wouldn't place my entire faith in being
found
and rescued in one of the garden variety ELT's that we are mandated to
carry. My point is that obsessing over antenna ground plane details is
wasted time.
Nobody knows exactly what attitude their aircraft will be in when it
finishes crashing. The ELT antenna could end up pointing directly down
at,
and a few inches from, the surface of the earth. How much difference
would a
perfect ground plane, if one could construct one, make in that
situation?
Here is my thinking:
1) To be legal, buy one of the garden variety ELT's that we are mandated
to
carry. Install it securely in the proper location in the proper attitude
with regard to its deceleration sensor. Fasten on the wire antenna that
came
with the ELT and don't obsess over ground planes or what the antenna's
attitude will be when you finish crashing. Go fly.
2) If you want to take some truly effective steps for rescue after
crashing
you can, and probably should to the degree that you are concerned and
considering routes of flight, do some or all of the following.
2A) Always carry a hand held VHF comm radio with a battery supply that
you
KNOW to be capable of extended operation.
2B) Always carry a cell phone with a battery supply that you KNOW to be
capable of extended operation.
2C) Purchase and carry a PLB http://www.equipped.com/faq_plb/default.asp
2D) Carry a tough plastic container of water -- size your choice. My
experience with even short time rescued people is that they experienced
an
almost mentally debilitating thirst shortly after crashing.
2E) Carry a knife of enough size and sturdiness to punch through / crack
your plastic windows and canopy.
I am sure that other posters will add their favorite / essential crash
survival items, but obsessing over these items falls into the same
category
of time wasting like obsessing over ground planes. Take what you deem to
be
reasonable precautions to be rescued after a survivable crash and then
proceed to fly worry and guilt free (and legal).
OC
PS: If you have the bank account to afford one of the new 406 Mhz ELT's,
go
for it.
<< hi all, I have several antennas to install. My elt requires a ground
plane. Tim at b and
c was very helpful with my questions but i question leads to 5 more. Is
there
any way around a ground plane for the elt? If not, any suggestions on
how to
make it in my wood/cloth fuselage? At first i thought numerous strips of
thin
copper way the way to go but that looks like just more fasteners. Can a
very
thin sheet be laid down in the fuse. bottom? It wouldnt exactly be flat
with
all the woodworking to go around.....skip.....Thanks in advance, bob
noffs>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Folks,
In Australia, legislation to mandate fixed ELT in all GA aircraft was
defeated in the Parliament, after a lobbying campaign by AOPA Australia.
We do have legislation for the mandatory carriage of handheld
ELT/EPIRB ( your PLB) on all flights over 50 miles from base.
The statistics are stark, in actual crash scenarios, the failure rate
of fixed ELT is around 95%.
The most common cause of failure is the disruption of the antenna or
the aerial cable from the box to the antenna, for all the reasons you
can think of.
Another common reason is that the aircraft is in the water , 100% of
ELT's do not work under water. Post accident fire, prior internal
failure etc, are common additional causes.
In contrast, in survivable accidents, 100% of hand held ELT have
worked. In non-survivable accidents, all you are talking about is
saving search costs. Given what little information is available in
the US ( I did a lot of work jointly with the Civil Air Patrol on the
subject) the 95% + failure rate holds good in the US ---- As you
might expect, given the causes of failure are inherent in the
design/installation of fixed ELT.
Remember that the US legislation to mandate ELT bypassed all the
usual consultation, cost benefit analysis etc, it was a knee jerk
political reaction to the loss of an aircraft in Alaska, I don't
recall if it was a Congressman or Senator that was lost. There is
absolutely NO evidence to show that the outcome of that accident
would have been any different had the aircraft been fitted with an
ELT, statistically there was a better than 95% failure probability.
Given actual accident, the failure probability was closer to 100%.
In view of phasing out the COSPAR/SARSAT on 121.5/243, in accord with
the latest specifications for new generation ELT, commodity priced
400 mcs GPS/ELT are now available.
Interestingly, because of the low cost of an ELT, their use is
widespread, even Forest Service type organisations ( the name varies
state by state) rent ELT to hikers who do not have their own, most 4
Wheel Drivers carry one now, if they are in a remote area.
In short, fixed ELT are a total waste on money.
Even in three airline accidents ( all Airbus) that we could track
down, where the tail mounted ELT survived in-tact in a largely intact
tail section, all three ELT failed to transmit a useable signal.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton.
At 21:28 10/02/2006, you wrote:
>
>Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "bob noffs"
>
>
>2/10/2006
>
>Hello Bob, Dare I post some heresy? Will the gummint sic its watch dogs on
>me? Will the electromagnetic radiation purists on the list rise up in total
>fury to slap me down? Well, I'll take a chance.
>
>Suppose that the gummint, in its infinite wisdom, mandated that every
>aircraft carry 3 pounds of butter and a container of maple syrup just in
>case the survival situation after crashing resulted in a supply of pancakes
>as the available food supply. Would you insist on carrying genuine maple
>syrup or would an imitation be good enough for you?
>
>Maybe an ELT is a little more useful than butter and maple syrup in a crash
>situation, but I sure as hell wouldn't place my entire faith in being found
>and rescued in one of the garden variety ELT's that we are mandated to
>carry. My point is that obsessing over antenna ground plane details is
>wasted time.
>
>Nobody knows exactly what attitude their aircraft will be in when it
>finishes crashing. The ELT antenna could end up pointing directly down at,
>and a few inches from, the surface of the earth. How much difference would a
>perfect ground plane, if one could construct one, make in that situation?
>
>Here is my thinking:
>
>1) To be legal, buy one of the garden variety ELT's that we are mandated to
>carry. Install it securely in the proper location in the proper attitude
>with regard to its deceleration sensor. Fasten on the wire antenna that came
>with the ELT and don't obsess over ground planes or what the antenna's
>attitude will be when you finish crashing. Go fly.
>
>2) If you want to take some truly effective steps for rescue after crashing
>you can, and probably should to the degree that you are concerned and
>considering routes of flight, do some or all of the following.
>
>2A) Always carry a hand held VHF comm radio with a battery supply that you
>KNOW to be capable of extended operation.
>
>2B) Always carry a cell phone with a battery supply that you KNOW to be
>capable of extended operation.
>
>2C) Purchase and carry a PLB http://www.equipped.com/faq_plb/default.asp
>
>2D) Carry a tough plastic container of water -- size your choice. My
>experience with even short time rescued people is that they experienced an
>almost mentally debilitating thirst shortly after crashing.
>
>2E) Carry a knife of enough size and sturdiness to punch through / crack
>your plastic windows and canopy.
>
>I am sure that other posters will add their favorite / essential crash
>survival items, but obsessing over these items falls into the same category
>of time wasting like obsessing over ground planes. Take what you deem to be
>reasonable precautions to be rescued after a survivable crash and then
>proceed to fly worry and guilt free (and legal).
>
>OC
>
>PS: If you have the bank account to afford one of the new 406 Mhz ELT's, go
>for it.
>
><< hi all, I have several antennas to install. My elt requires a ground
>plane. Tim at b and
>c was very helpful with my questions but i question leads to 5 more. Is
>there
>any way around a ground plane for the elt? If not, any suggestions on how to
>make it in my wood/cloth fuselage? At first i thought numerous strips of
>thin
>copper way the way to go but that looks like just more fasteners. Can a very
>thin sheet be laid down in the fuse. bottom? It wouldnt exactly be flat with
>all the woodworking to go around.....skip.....Thanks in advance, bob noffs>>
>
>
CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet
Services and Warbirds.Net. & .
This message is intended for and should only be used by the
addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information.If you are not the intended recipient any use
distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this
communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken
delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately to:
Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: A Better PLB Web Site |
Cc: ,
Folks,
See my previous post, I rest my case.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
At 21:42 10/02/2006, bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote:
>
>2/10/2006
>
>I wish that I had included this web site in my response to Bob Noffs'
>question about making a ground plane for an ELT antenna.
>
>http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html
>
>Here is an extract from that site regarding our currently government
>mandated ELT's:
>
>"Unfortunately, these have proven to be highly ineffective. They have a 97%
>false alarm rate, activate properly in only 12% of crashes, and provide no
>identification data."
>
>OC
>
>
CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet
Services and Warbirds.Net. & .
This message is intended for and should only be used by the
addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information.If you are not the intended recipient any use
distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this
communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken
delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately to:
Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Wiring up my new panel and have not run across a wire gauge for the mike and
phone connection. Is 18 gauge OK? Any need to use shielded wire?
Thanks,
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Marvin Dupree <97corvette(at)cox.net> |
18ga should be okay but use shielded on the mike
marv m20e
On Feb 12, 2006, at 8:07 AM, Bob Gibfried wrote:
>
> Wiring up my new panel and have not run across a wire gauge for the
> mike and
> phone connection. Is 18 gauge OK? Any need to use shielded wire?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob, Wichita
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
18 gauge is ok but it is unnecessarily thick. 22g is quite good enough. The
mike connections should definitely be screened and it would do no harm to
wire the phone connection with screened too.
John
>
> Wiring up my new panel and have not run across a wire gauge for the mike
> and
> phone connection. Is 18 gauge OK? Any need to use shielded wire?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Looking for a Bendix King KMD 150 pin out diagram.
Anyone have a source?
Thanks.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "F. ILMAIN" <f_ilmain(at)hotmail.com> |
Did you already get a it ? Do you need just the pin out diagram ?
Franck
>From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Avionics-List: Pin out
>Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 08:01:38 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
>
>
>Looking for a Bendix King KMD 150 pin out diagram.
>
>Anyone have a source?
>
>Thanks.
>
>Bob, Wichita
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D. Joe Smith" <jsmith(at)syntherica.com> |
Does anyone have any experience with MicroAir radios? I am thinking about
using them in an open cockpit modified Skybolt. I plan on using PTT
switches for the intercom function, as I am not sure VOX would work in an
open cockpit environment.
Does anybody have any experience with the new Xcom 760 radio that is about
the same size as the MicroAir? These radios seem to be very similar in
design. The Xcom appears to be more powerful and to have a number of
additional features. Its intercom system is voice-activated, however,
which may not work in my open cockpit environment.
MicroAir makes a companion transponder as well. Does anyone have any
experience with this unit?
D. Joe Smith
Chapel Hill, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Franz Fux" <franz(at)lastfrontierheli.com> |
Hi Bob,
I can fax it to you, send me a number
Franz
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bob
Gibfried
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 6:02 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Pin out
Looking for a Bendix King KMD 150 pin out diagram.
Anyone have a source?
Thanks.
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Thanks to all who replied to my request for a KMD 150 pin out. First to
reply was a gentleman from England. It's an amazing world we live in when a
simple request can be met halfway around the world!
Now if anyone can point me to a good set of crimpers. Mashing the pins with
a needle nose just doesn't work for me.
Thanks
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
You should go to http://aeroelectric.com/, buy the book and read all the
articles on the web site. Then you'll know the right questions to ask.
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Gibfried
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 8:25 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Pin out
Thanks to all who replied to my request for a KMD 150 pin out. First to
reply was a gentleman from England. It's an amazing world we live in when a
simple request can be met halfway around the world!
Now if anyone can point me to a good set of crimpers. Mashing the pins with
a needle nose just doesn't work for me.
Thanks
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | aeroads(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re:MiroAir Radio |
Have a MicroAir in an open cockpit biplane: a Stampe the transceiver has
great range in both trans and receive with a small ground plane in the
rounded turtle deck I use the flexible black rubber coated antenna that
was recommended the squelch requires constant attention for both radio
and intercom not surprising in the open cockpit but is loud and
clear once set my only reservation is reading the frequency settings
in some lighting conditions I like to set frequencies before takeoff if
I could have installed the unit directly aimed at the pilots eye there would
be no grat problem but the panel depth required a side mounting
Yup a might fine unit Murray aeroads(at)comcast.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | frequent flyer <jdhcv(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re:MiroAir Radio |
I have on in my Cessna 150. Works great but hard to
change frequencies in turbulence.
Jack
--- erodes(at)comcast.net wrote:
> aeroads(at)comcast.net
>
> Have a MicroAir in an open cockpit biplane: a Stampe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Olson <Tim(at)MyRV10.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GTX330 TIS with DAC GDC34A/Chelton |
Mike,
Do you have the GNS480 for a Nav/Com, or the 430/530?
I called to ask them for an update today and right
now their questioning that maybe the 480/330 are
teaming up to thwart the function in some way.
Would be interesting to know.
Also, sure would be nice if they'd get their 480/330
interfaces figured out so they can drop the whole
GDC34A altogether and just read the serial direct.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Mike wrote:
>
> I have the equipment, but like you am debugging. It's in and flying but
> I can't get it to work..
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:07 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com; rv-list(at)matronics.com;
> avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Avionics-List: GTX330 TIS with DAC GDC34A/Chelton
>
>
> At one point on a list I had a reply from someone who
> actually was using the GDC34A Arinc to serial converter
> like I am to get TIS traffic on their Chelton or other
> EFIS from the GTX330 Transponder.
>
> Right now that's my last remaining thing to debug that
> I've identified, and I'm hoping to talk to someone
> who's got it working to verify settings.
>
> Anyone out there with that equipment that can comment?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Niday <cniday(at)gb.nrao.edu> |
Folks,
I have inherited an old Communications Specialists TR720 airband
handheld portable radio that has no transmit output and not so good
receive sensitivity.
Is there anyone out there that might have a service manual for this
unit? I would be willing to pay copying charges or if you trust me,
make a copy of your manual and send it back. And no, I haven't called
CommSpec yet, but I've got a sneakin' suspicion they won't have the
manual anymore.
Any help will be appreciated.
--
-Chuck Niday, N8DBN-
Tech. Spec. I
National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Green Bank, WV
http://www.gb.nrao.edu
Low time Cessna Driver and Homebuilder Wannabe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GTX330 TIS with DAC GDC34A/Chelton |
Tim,
I am interfacing the GTX330 through the DAC GDC34A to the Chelton EFIS.
I'm trying to figure out if the GTX330 needs the ARINC 429 input from
the DAC GDC34A in order to provide the ARINC output. Currently I have
connected the GTX330 ARINC 429 output to the GDC34 and the RS232 TX/RX
to the Chelton EFIS. I didn't connect the ARINC input to the GTX330 for
two reasons, I didn't think it was needed, and it wasn't pre-wired when
I built the panel. I am thinking that the GTX330 needs position
information from the GPS in the EFIS, and therefore requires the ARINC
429 input. What do you think? I have a call into Garmin and hope to
hear from them Monday. DAC was no help and Chelton has not been much
help on this issue.
Mike Larkin
Lancair Legacy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GTX330 TIS with DAC GDC34A/Chelton
Mike,
Do you have the GNS480 for a Nav/Com, or the 430/530?
I called to ask them for an update today and right
now their questioning that maybe the 480/330 are
teaming up to thwart the function in some way.
Would be interesting to know.
Also, sure would be nice if they'd get their 480/330
interfaces figured out so they can drop the whole
GDC34A altogether and just read the serial direct.
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
Mike wrote:
>
> I have the equipment, but like you am debugging. It's in and flying
but
> I can't get it to work..
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim
Olson
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 9:07 AM
> To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com; rv-list(at)matronics.com;
> avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Avionics-List: GTX330 TIS with DAC GDC34A/Chelton
>
>
> At one point on a list I had a reply from someone who
> actually was using the GDC34A Arinc to serial converter
> like I am to get TIS traffic on their Chelton or other
> EFIS from the GTX330 Transponder.
>
> Right now that's my last remaining thing to debug that
> I've identified, and I'm hoping to talk to someone
> who's got it working to verify settings.
>
> Anyone out there with that equipment that can comment?
>
--
1/16/2006
--
1/16/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
| Subject: | Re: MicroAir Radios |
Joe,
If you have a problem, it is easy to contact MicroAir direct via
their web site.
I know of a number of open cockpit applications, all successful, and
in the price `range, they take up far less panel space than something
like an ICOM 200.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
At 02:29 22/02/2006, you wrote:
>
>Does anyone have any experience with MicroAir radios? I am thinking about
>using them in an open cockpit modified Skybolt. I plan on using PTT
>switches for the intercom function, as I am not sure VOX would work in an
>open cockpit environment.
>
>Does anybody have any experience with the new Xcom 760 radio that is about
>the same size as the MicroAir? These radios seem to be very similar in
>design. The Xcom appears to be more powerful and to have a number of
>additional features. Its intercom system is voice-activated, however,
>which may not work in my open cockpit environment.
>
>MicroAir makes a companion transponder as well. Does anyone have any
>experience with this unit?
>
>D. Joe Smith
>Chapel Hill, NC
>
>
CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet
Services and Warbirds.Net. & .
This message is intended for and should only be used by the
addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information.If you are not the intended recipient any use
distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this
communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken
delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately to:
Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au> |
Bob,
Look at ebay, search "Lane Pilot", it will be a good start.
I have assembled a virtually complete set of "everything you need",
for both MilSpec ( Cannon, Burndy,etc) and modern connectors, for a
total of less than $300, and two Daniels crimpers were about $220 of the total.
Cheers,
Bill Hamilton
At 00:25 23/02/2006, you wrote:
>
>Thanks to all who replied to my request for a KMD 150 pin out. First to
>reply was a gentleman from England. It's an amazing world we live in when a
>simple request can be met halfway around the world!
>
>Now if anyone can point me to a good set of crimpers. Mashing the pins with
>a needle nose just doesn't work for me.
>
>Thanks
>
>Bob, Wichita
>
>
CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE
W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet
Services and Warbirds.Net. & .
This message is intended for and should only be used by the
addressee. It is confidential and may contain legally privileged
information.If you are not the intended recipient any use
distribution,disclosure or copying of this message is strictly
prohibited.Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this
communication are not waived or lost by reason of the mistaken
delivery to you.If you have received this message in error, please
notify us immediately to:
Australia 61 (0)408 876 526
Dolores capitis non fero. Eos do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry E. James" <larry(at)ncproto.com> |
| Subject: | GNS-530 vrs. MX-20 |
Hello All,
I'm new to this list and have what I hope is an
interesting question: I have been planning on
installing a Garmin GNS-530 for quite some time, and
before I make the final commitment I want to address one
final option; installing instead an MX-20 with all the
appropriate additions to render the same functions as
the 530.
I am building a tandem 2-place (Harmon Rocket) with the
primary mission statement of fun cross-country work. I
want to minimize pilot workload and maximize safety and
fun. I desire to have weather and may install traffic
at a later time.
The reason for this query is that I have heard the 530
has barely enough computing power to handle weather and
that the MX-20 does this much better and with a better
display. The MX-20 is also a better platform to make
changes to later on. So my questions are:
1) any suggestions on the best equipment to integrate
with the MX-20 to allow its function to match that of
the 530 ??
2) any input on which of these options offers the best
performance ??
3) any input on which of these options offers the most
flexibility ??
4) any input on which of these options offers the
easiest use ??
Thanks a ton in advance !!!!
--
Larry E. James
Bellevue, WA Harmon Rocket II
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert M. Limb" <Robert.Limb(at)btinternet.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Slaving a Garmin 296 to the GNS430 |
Has anyone had experience of hooking up a 296 to GNS430?
Evidently using the "Aviation In" feature on the 296 and the auto crosslink
feature on the GNS430 the Flight plan and user wpt's will be transferred
automatically.
The hook up appears to be via the GNS430 RS232 output port 1 feeding the
Com1 296 data in (yellow wire). The Garmin Installation Manual figure 4-11
only shows a hook for the 195 and Pilot III.
So I would like to see if anyone has got this setup working. The terrain
data from the 296 is better than the 430 and it is WAAS enabled.
Thanks
Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chuck Niday <cniday(at)gb.nrao.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Com Spec TR720 |
Folks,
I called Comm Spec and they cheerfully emailed me pdf files of the
radio's schematics and block diagrams. This was plenty for me to get
the radio working again.
I get the impression this list doesn't care much for radios and is much
more interested in the "fancier electronics" found in MFD's, navigation
systems, etc. I guess that's OK, but unfortunate when you consider the
FAA will be mandating conversion to digital comm radios in the not so
distant future. That should get folks excited.
--
-Chuck Niday, N8DBN-
Low Time Cessna Driver & Homebuilder Wannabe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GTX330 TIS with DAC GDC34A/Chelton |
Tim,
Good deal! I'm still working on the WSI weather interface, I'm having
reception problems.
Happy flying,
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 7:03 AM
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: GTX330 TIS with DAC GDC34A/Chelton
Mike,
I now have the traffic working too. It was a confusing
port setting in the unit's setup. After setting Port 23/24
to HIGH, the traffic works beautifully. It's strange,
because the J1 wiring diagram shows it as RX5/TX5, which
is COM5, but the setup refers it to COM 23/24...which
isn't right as far as I know, and it isn't referencing the
pins on the J1 connector either. Anyway, that does indeed
do the trick. It's very very nice to have. I flew near
a class B area (MSP) to test it out and ended up seeing
planes near my altitude that I never would have known about.
At this point, I have nothing left to complain about. ;)
Thanks,
Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying
--
1/16/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
> 3/10/2006
>
> Hello Fellow Builders, I bring the below web site to your attention:
>
> http://www.emachineshop.com/
>
> I have no connection with or first hand knowledge of this company. I am,
> however, absolutely astounded that they would list a capability to make
> aircraft parts.
>
> Most companies, unless they are OEM's, PMA's, hold an STC, or cater to the
> amateur built community ask you to leave as soon as you reveal that an
> aircraft is involved in your inquiries.
>
> OC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Avionics Dealer References |
Hi everyone,
I am in the process of finalizing my avionics order and I would like some
input on the various dealers out there. Is there anyone that has provided
particularly good or bad service? Obviously, I would like to keep my costs
to a minimum, but I'm reluctant to deal with companies that have bad
reputations. I'm planning on installing the items myself, so a full service
shop is not required. I've listed the items I plan to install below in case
that makes a difference on recommendations.
GRT EFIS
Dynon D100 EFIS
Garmin GMA-340
Garmin GNS-430
Garmin SL-30
Garmin GTX-327
Advanced Flight Systems AOA Pro
Digiflight IIVSGV
Also, If you are a dealer please feel free to email me a quote at
gvouga(at)gmail.com.
Thanks,
Greg Vouga
RV-7A
Raleigh, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Avionics Dealer References |
Greg,
I have dealt with every company that you listed. I will break down who
they are and give you my opinion of customer and tech support and how
many times I have had to use them in the last year or two. I am a seven
year avionics technician and an airline pilot with an A&P. I just
finished a project of my own, a Lancair Legacy with a Chilton EFIS, Blue
Mountain EFIS, Advanced Flight AF-2500 engine system and AOA system,
Garmin SL-30 SL-40 GMA-340 and GTX-330, Trutrak Sorcerer Autopilot, Sony
AM/FM/CD/DVD/XM entertainment system, GRT EIS 6000 Air Data, Light Speed
Plasma III (dual) electronic ignition, DAC GDC34A digital converter, and
Mountain High O2D2 oxygen system.
I'll get the big one out of the way first: Garmin GMA-340, Garmin
GNS-430, Garmin SL-30, and Garmin GTX-327 Garmin makes good stable
products and has top notch Technical support, and for the most par are
becoming the leader in general aviation avionics. All the units you
listed are robust, are TSO'ed and perform well. Garmin is a
manufacturer that uses a dealer network to sell and maintain their
products. Garmin will work directly with the home builder to provide
technical support. My favorite avionics shop that works well with
homebuilders is Aerotronics up in Montana. Gary Wirrell is the VP of
the experimental division and would be more then happy to answer any
questions you may have. Aerotronics address is: 1651 Aviation Place,
Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT 59105, Phone: (406)
259-5006, Fax: (406) 252-4369. I have a quick question about your
choice of the GTX-327, if you get the GTX-330 you will get the TIS
(Graphic Traffic function provided by approach radar)function which
provides traffic information that can be displayed on your Garmin
GNS-430 and maybe even you GRT EFIS. A Great Function!
Grand Rapids Technology GRT EFIS: I have purchased some products from
them but not the EFIS unit yet. My experience has been very favorable;
they have top end tech support and have been willing to up grade units
to suite for free. They make very stable products and I have had good
luck with them. Gary at Aerotronics is a seller for GRT or you can buy
direct.
Advanced Flight Systems AOA Pro: I can't say enough great things about
them. I have installed and/or use their products over six time and they
work great. On two occasions I had a minor problem with a unit and they
pulled out all the stops to make it right, what more can I say. I too
have the AOA Pro and love it. A good dealer for this product that I have
used is Robby Attaway at Attaway Air. www.attawayair.com.
Trutrak Digiflight IIVSGV: I have only worked with them a few times and
they have offered an acceptable level of service. The reason I say it
this way is, I haven't had the opportunity to truly test the tech
support because I haven't had any problems with their systems. I just
took delivery of the new Sorcerer autopilot which was in development
when I ordered it and they were always up front with what was going on
(no false promises just the truth) and they honored the original quoted
price without even having to ask. A good dealer for this product that I
have used is Robby Attaway at Attaway Air www.attawayair.com.
Dynon Avionics D100 EFIS: I have owned a D10 and installed a few
D10A's. Basically I find the unit a good VFR unit and mostly stable.
The unit works well but I feel their are other units out there that are
better for the price. One issue I have had with their systems from the
beginning is the lack of an internal GPS that would give you winds aloft
and TAS as well as position and an intergraded map. Other issues I have
had in the past have been the lack of interface to display external
navigation information like VOR/LOC/GS which most competing products
offer. I think their engine monitor system is missing some key system
information like trim indicators and fuel quantity. As for customer and
tech support I would rate them Fair; On the Tech side, if you get one of
them they are very knowledgeable and helpful. On the customer side I
found them to be less then helpful with options, changes and additions.
The tended to nickel and dime us and were hard to get a hold of most of
the time. With Dynon you can buy direct.
I hope this information helps.
Mike
Dynon D100 EFIS
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg
Vouga
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:02 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics Dealer References
Hi everyone,
I am in the process of finalizing my avionics order and I would like
some
input on the various dealers out there. Is there anyone that has
provided
particularly good or bad service? Obviously, I would like to keep my
costs
to a minimum, but I'm reluctant to deal with companies that have bad
reputations. I'm planning on installing the items myself, so a full
service
shop is not required. I've listed the items I plan to install below in
case
that makes a difference on recommendations.
GRT EFIS
Dynon D100 EFIS
Garmin GMA-340
Garmin GNS-430
Garmin SL-30
Garmin GTX-327
Advanced Flight Systems AOA Pro
Digiflight IIVSGV
Also, If you are a dealer please feel free to email me a quote at
gvouga(at)gmail.com.
Thanks,
Greg Vouga
RV-7A
Raleigh, NC
--
1/16/2006
--
1/16/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Fultz" <dfultz7(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Dealer References |
What would you recommend over a Dynon for the price or there abouts with the
experience you have had? Thanks Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Avionics Dealer References
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Avionics Dealer References |
Dale,
For the price and product, I like and have had good luck with the most
recent release of the Blue Mountain products. Their earlier products
were poor performers, but the new line is much better. Like Dynon,
their customer support is fair. There are pros and cons to each product
but I find the BM provides more bang for the buck and it is more stable
then the Dynon. That's the EFIS side, on the engine monitor side I like
the Advanced Flight AF-2500 (Great), Xerion AuRacle(NEW! Good), and the
EI MVP-50 (Great but pricey)
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
Fultz
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:46 AM
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Avionics Dealer References
What would you recommend over a Dynon for the price or there abouts with
the
experience you have had? Thanks Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:27 AM
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Avionics Dealer References
>
--
1/16/2006
--
1/16/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Dealer References |
Dale,
could you please specify in detail why the BM is more stable then the Dynon?
Many thanks
Werner
Mike wrote:
>
>Dale,
>
>For the price and product, I like and have had good luck with the most
>recent release of the Blue Mountain products. Their earlier products
>were poor performers, but the new line is much better. Like Dynon,
>their customer support is fair. There are pros and cons to each product
>but I find the BM provides more bang for the buck and it is more stable
>then the Dynon. That's the EFIS side, on the engine monitor side I like
>the Advanced Flight AF-2500 (Great), Xerion AuRacle(NEW! Good), and the
>EI MVP-50 (Great but pricey)
>
>Mike
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dale
>Fultz
>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 8:46 AM
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Avionics Dealer References
>
>
>
>What would you recommend over a Dynon for the price or there abouts with
>the
>experience you have had? Thanks Dale
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 10:27 AM
>Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Avionics Dealer References
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Avionics Dealer References |
Mike,
Thanks for all the input. You asked why i'm going with the GTX-327.
Basically it's price. The 330 is about double the price and my budget won't
allow it.
Thanks again,
Greg
>From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Avionics Dealer References
>Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 08:27:02 -0700
>
>
>Greg,
>
>I have dealt with every company that you listed. I will break down who
>they are and give you my opinion of customer and tech support and how
>many times I have had to use them in the last year or two. I am a seven
>year avionics technician and an airline pilot with an A&P. I just
>finished a project of my own, a Lancair Legacy with a Chilton EFIS, Blue
>Mountain EFIS, Advanced Flight AF-2500 engine system and AOA system,
>Garmin SL-30 SL-40 GMA-340 and GTX-330, Trutrak Sorcerer Autopilot, Sony
>AM/FM/CD/DVD/XM entertainment system, GRT EIS 6000 Air Data, Light Speed
>Plasma III (dual) electronic ignition, DAC GDC34A digital converter, and
>Mountain High O2D2 oxygen system.
>
>I'll get the big one out of the way first: Garmin GMA-340, Garmin
>GNS-430, Garmin SL-30, and Garmin GTX-327 Garmin makes good stable
>products and has top notch Technical support, and for the most par are
>becoming the leader in general aviation avionics. All the units you
>listed are robust, are TSO'ed and perform well. Garmin is a
>manufacturer that uses a dealer network to sell and maintain their
>products. Garmin will work directly with the home builder to provide
>technical support. My favorite avionics shop that works well with
>homebuilders is Aerotronics up in Montana. Gary Wirrell is the VP of
>the experimental division and would be more then happy to answer any
>questions you may have. Aerotronics address is: 1651 Aviation Place,
>Billings Logan International Airport, Billings, MT 59105, Phone: (406)
>259-5006, Fax: (406) 252-4369. I have a quick question about your
>choice of the GTX-327, if you get the GTX-330 you will get the TIS
>(Graphic Traffic function provided by approach radar)function which
>provides traffic information that can be displayed on your Garmin
>GNS-430 and maybe even you GRT EFIS. A Great Function!
>
>Grand Rapids Technology GRT EFIS: I have purchased some products from
>them but not the EFIS unit yet. My experience has been very favorable;
>they have top end tech support and have been willing to up grade units
>to suite for free. They make very stable products and I have had good
>luck with them. Gary at Aerotronics is a seller for GRT or you can buy
>direct.
>
>Advanced Flight Systems AOA Pro: I can't say enough great things about
>them. I have installed and/or use their products over six time and they
>work great. On two occasions I had a minor problem with a unit and they
>pulled out all the stops to make it right, what more can I say. I too
>have the AOA Pro and love it. A good dealer for this product that I have
>used is Robby Attaway at Attaway Air. www.attawayair.com.
>
>Trutrak Digiflight IIVSGV: I have only worked with them a few times and
>they have offered an acceptable level of service. The reason I say it
>this way is, I haven't had the opportunity to truly test the tech
>support because I haven't had any problems with their systems. I just
>took delivery of the new Sorcerer autopilot which was in development
>when I ordered it and they were always up front with what was going on
>(no false promises just the truth) and they honored the original quoted
>price without even having to ask. A good dealer for this product that I
>have used is Robby Attaway at Attaway Air www.attawayair.com.
>
>Dynon Avionics D100 EFIS: I have owned a D10 and installed a few
>D10A's. Basically I find the unit a good VFR unit and mostly stable.
>The unit works well but I feel their are other units out there that are
>better for the price. One issue I have had with their systems from the
>beginning is the lack of an internal GPS that would give you winds aloft
>and TAS as well as position and an intergraded map. Other issues I have
>had in the past have been the lack of interface to display external
>navigation information like VOR/LOC/GS which most competing products
>offer. I think their engine monitor system is missing some key system
>information like trim indicators and fuel quantity. As for customer and
>tech support I would rate them Fair; On the Tech side, if you get one of
>them they are very knowledgeable and helpful. On the customer side I
>found them to be less then helpful with options, changes and additions.
>The tended to nickel and dime us and were hard to get a hold of most of
>the time. With Dynon you can buy direct.
>
>I hope this information helps.
>
>Mike
>
>
>Dynon D100 EFIS
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Greg
>Vouga
>Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:02 AM
>To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Avionics-List: Avionics Dealer References
>
>
>Hi everyone,
>
>I am in the process of finalizing my avionics order and I would like
>some
>input on the various dealers out there. Is there anyone that has
>provided
>particularly good or bad service? Obviously, I would like to keep my
>costs
>to a minimum, but I'm reluctant to deal with companies that have bad
>reputations. I'm planning on installing the items myself, so a full
>service
>shop is not required. I've listed the items I plan to install below in
>case
>that makes a difference on recommendations.
>
>GRT EFIS
>Dynon D100 EFIS
>Garmin GMA-340
>Garmin GNS-430
>Garmin SL-30
>Garmin GTX-327
>Advanced Flight Systems AOA Pro
>Digiflight IIVSGV
>
>Also, If you are a dealer please feel free to email me a quote at
>gvouga(at)gmail.com.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Greg Vouga
>RV-7A
>Raleigh, NC
>
>
>--
>1/16/2006
>
>
>--
>1/16/2006
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darwin N. Barrie" <ktlkrn(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Dealer References |
Confused as to whether you are asking about the equipment or someone to supply
the equipment.
I have nearly the same stuff. Sub out the SL30 for a 40 and the 327 for a 330S.
I have the Dynon 10A and AF2500 engine monitor. Approach Systems Wiring hub.
Wouldn't do anything different
Most everything was purchased from Stark Avionics. They are in Columbus GA so they
are in your end of the country. I'd also highly recommend Steinair in Minnesota.
Darwin N. Barrie
Chandler AZ
RV-7 N717EE
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rene" <rene(at)felker.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Dealer References |
Try: http://www.starkavionics.com/
Rene'
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Werner Schneider <glastar(at)gmx.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics Dealer References |
Hi Mike,
I own a Dynon D10A (upgrading from a D10) and new an EMS-10 (engine monitor)
>The unit works well but I feel their are other units out there that are
>better for the price. One issue I have had with their systems from the
>beginning is the lack of an internal GPS that would give you winds aloft
>and TAS as well as position and an intergraded map. Other issues I have
>had in the past have been the lack of interface to display external
>navigation information like VOR/LOC/GS which most competing products
>offer.
>
It's always up to what you want, I believe If you don't want to go the
expensive route and are happy what they offer for, it's a good deal for
the money (GPS signal integration is on the way)
> I think their engine monitor system is missing some key system
>information like trim indicators and fuel quantity.
>
Sorry, your information is incomplete, you can have up to four fuel
tanks connected to it and have a read out for them, further I'm not a
big fan of having flight information (trim) on the engine monitor, but
you have 3 General Purpose inputs which might be used
>As for customer and
>tech support I would rate them Fair; On the Tech side, if you get one of
>them they are very knowledgeable and helpful. On the customer side I
>found them to be less then helpful with options, changes and additions.
>
>
I agree, we (3 users) had to dispute a bit but found with Ron Ulbrich a
person you can discuss, we had a problem to get the D10 with the EMS10
and OAT to work, when we upgraded to the D10A and EMS10A we got the
EMS10A upgrade for free (after some discussion)
I think for a VFR airplane the D10A/EMSD10 or D100/EMSD120 with a price
for a 4cyl carbureted engine no fuel flow of 4500$ or the larger package
(including remote compass) for $5000 (fuel flow adds 200$ and add your
capacitive or resistive sensors) including all other sensors is a good
deal out of my view.
http://www.steinair.com/dynon.htm Steinair is a great dealer with many
helpful information too.
Werner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net> |
Anyone have the part number for the Bendix King tool to remove the radios
from the tray?
Source?
Thanks,
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce Gray" <Bruce(at)glasair.org> |
Should be a standard size hex wrench,
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Gibfried
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Removal tool
Anyone have the part number for the Bendix King tool to remove the radios
from the tray?
Source?
Thanks,
Bob, Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rd2(at)evenlink.com |
Yes it is standard size, 3/32" I think.
Be careful not to overturn, some of their stops are plastic.
Rumen
_____________________Original message __________________________
(received from Bruce Gray; Date: 09:29 AM 3/16/2006
-0500)
Should be a standard size hex wrench,
Bruce
www.glasair.org
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bob Gibfried
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:05 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Removal tool
Anyone have the part number for the Bendix King tool to remove the radios
from the tray?
Source?
Thanks,
Bob, Wichita
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Vouga" <gmvouga(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: AeroElectric-List: Avionics Dealer References |
Thanks to all who responded. It seems that Stark Avionics, SteinAir, and
Affordable Panels all have great reputations within the group. I called
Stark a month or so ago requesting a quote and spoke to John directly. He
was very helpful on the phone and seemed to have very competitive prices. I
have not checked out the other two guys yet, but I plan on giving them a
call before I make my final decision in a couple weeks.
Thanks Again,
Greg
RV-7A
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Sign Guys" <avsigns(at)ccinternet.net> |
| Subject: | Looking for SL 60, SL40, SL30 |
Does anyone know where I can find an SL60? Failing that there might be an
interest in an SL30 or SL40.
Thanks Kevin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Walter Casey <mikec(at)caseyspm.com> |
| Subject: | Anywhere Wx 4-sale |
I have a complete "Anywhere Map" WX weather system which I purchased
at Oshkosh 2005. It is a moving map with Approach Plates, SIDS and
STARS.
It uses the HP IPAQ display.
=EF=BF=BC=EF=BF=BC
The system currently sells for $1,895
http://www.anywheremap.com/SearchResult.aspx?CategoryID=3D32
I have the original box, manuals, everything.
It is yours for $1,200 or Best Offer
I am selling because I am buying the $8,500 Grand Rapids weather system.
My tail number is N311WT
Contact me at
* Mike Casey *
* 6528 S. Oneida Ct. *
* Centennial, CO 80111-4617 USA *
* *
* Phone (303) 771-0815 *
* FAX (303) 220-1477 *
* eMail mikec(at)caseyspm.com *
********************************************
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics Email List Wiki! |
Dear Listers,
I have added a new feature to the Email List Forums at Matronics called a Wiki. What's "Wiki" you ask? A Wiki is a website. You go to it and browse just like you would any other web site. The difference is, you can change it. You can put anything you want on this web site without having to be a web designer or even being the owner. You can write a new page just like writing an email message on the BBS. You don't need to send it off to anyone to install on the site. It is kind of like a Blog (weblog) in which anyone can post. Here is a great page on where the term Wiki came from and what it means in the context of a website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki
So on to the new Matronics Email List Wiki... I've created this site for anyone
from any of the Email Lists to use. I envision that there are a great many
things that can be added to this new Wiki since there are always new and interesting
tidbits of useful information traversing the Lists.
Off the main Matronics Email List Wiki page, you will find a link called "Community
Portal". Here you will find more links to stubs for all the various Lists
found at Matronics (and a few other links). Brian Lloyd and others from the
Yak-List have already begun adding content in a number of areas. Bob Nuckolls
of AeroElectric fame has added a great article on "Ageing Aircraft".
I have discussed the new Matronics Email List Wiki with Tedd McHenry and Dwight Frye of the RV Wiki Site and they have decided to merge their site over onto the new Matronics Wiki server giving everyone a single source for information on RV building and flying! This migration will begin today and you should be able to find all of the content currently found at www.rvwiki.org moved over to the Matronics Wiki within a few days.
To make edits to the Matronics Wiki, you will need to have a login account on the
Matronics Wiki and I have disabled anonymous edits. This protects the Wiki
site from automated spam engines and other nuisances that could compromise the
data at the site.
Signing up for an account is fast and easy and begins by clicking on the "create
an account or log in" link in the upper right hand corner of any page. Note
that you do not have to have a login or be logged in to view any of the content.
The Matronics Email List Wiki is YOUR Wiki! It is only as useful as the content
found within. The concept of the Wiki is that the people the use it and update
it. If you've got an interesting procedure for doing something, MAKE A WIKI
PAGE ON IT! You can even upload pictures. Saw something interesting at a
flyin? MAKE A WIKI PAGE ON IT! Don't be shy, this is YOUR site to share information
with others with similar interests.
Here is a users guide on using the Wiki implemented at Matronics: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents This gives a lot of great information on how to get started editing pages.
And finally, here is the URL for the Matronics Email List Wiki:
http://wiki.matronics.com
Brian Lloyd has written an excellent introduction to Wikis on the front page.
I encourage you to read it over, then drill into the "Community Portal" and HAVE
FUN!!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Memory cards for GX-60 and MX20 |
Folks,
I just tested the new memory cards that I purchased from a recommendation based
on this list (thanks Jack!). I also found that I had a couple of spare 8MB cards
laying around that work too......
GREAT!
I also purchased a generic compact flash and was able to get a spare card for my
MX20. The MX20 card was a bit trickier as the Windows2000 OS is loaded as part
of the boot record. I needed to make an image for reload to a new card.
Don't worry - it's legal to back-up your software for restore on new hardware
as long as you don't sell it to someone else.
I now have the ability to archive a backup copy of all of my GX60 and MX20 images.
I can carry a spare copy of the current image or a copy of the previous image.
Just wanted to let others know that we don't have to let these vendors beat us
up with their rip-off prices.
Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Memory cards for GX-60 and MX20 |
Hi Ralph,
Somehow I missed the referral for the 8mb memory cards. I need one for my
GX60, can you tell me where you got them from ?
Thanks, Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Memory cards for GX-60 and MX20 |
The referral was for the 4MB - I found that I had 8MB's laying around and 'got
lucky' in that they worked too.
I went back and got the text that Jack Lockamy initially published - Here it is:
************************
Here's the info: The PCMCIA 4MB Linear Data Flash card(s) are manufactured by SMART Modular Technologies (p/n SM9FA2048IP320C). I found the two cards I purchased at www.memorydealers.com. (see http://www.memorydealers.com/4mbcis36serf.html). MemoryDealers's part number is: MEM3600-4FC. These are the same cards used in the Cisco 3620, 3640, 3660, 3661 and 3662 routers. You can find these routers (with the MEM3600-4FC cards installed) on Ebay for as little as $9.99. Just make sure the memory card included with the router(s) uses the same SMT number above. Also, not all PCMCIA cards are alike. The only card type that will work is a PCMCIA 4MB Type 1 Series 2 LINEAR Flash Card. If you use the part numbers shown above you will get the right card... I ordered my cards online from MemoryDealers.com and had them in 2-days via FEDEX!
***********************
This represents the initial 4MB requirement to allow for the larger datafile that
Jeppesen now puts out.
Hope this helps,
Ralph
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul McAllister <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
>Sent: Apr 19, 2006 8:11 AM
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Memory cards for GX-60 and MX20
>
>
>Hi Ralph,
>
>Somehow I missed the referral for the 8mb memory cards. I need one for my
>GX60, can you tell me where you got them from ?
>
>Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Memory cards for GX-60 and MX20 |
The original referral was on the RV-list - I have already reposted it to this list.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul McAllister <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net>
>Sent: Apr 19, 2006 8:11 AM
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Memory cards for GX-60 and MX20
>
>
>Hi Ralph,
>
>Somehow I missed the referral for the 8mb memory cards. I need one for my
>GX60, can you tell me where you got them from ?
>
>Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com> |
| Subject: | B&C Alternator for sale |
I have a B&C L-60 (60-amp alternator) that was mounted to an engine once but
was never used. It's too big to clear the cowl and it needs a good home.
Docs and mounts (boss mount) are included.
It'll be going on ebay shortly, but I wanted to see if there is any interest
in it here first. I wish I could have saved a few bucks on a virtually new
unit when I was buying parts. ;-) Now's your chance to save $100.
$500 and it's yours.
Let me know.
James Redmon
Berkut #013 N97TX
http://www.berkut13.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DEAN PSIROPOULOS" <dean.psiropoulos(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Converting IFR GPS to Terminal |
I have a Tommorrow (UPS AT) GX-65 GPS/COM. This unit can be used for
En-route IFR operations and has a TSO-C129a Class A2 certification. This is
basically the same unit as the GX-60 which is also certified for IFR
terminal and approach operations. My question is this, I'm guessing that
the only difference between the GX60 and 65 is the operational software
load. It may even be as simple as a change to a software configuration
table that activates additional features to enable the terminal and approach
capabilities. So.....is there any ex-UPS Aviation Technologies employees
lurking on this list that can tell me if my hypothesis is correct? And if
it there is, would they be willing to help me get this software load
configured so I can do approach and terminal ops with the GX65? Since the GX
series is no longer sold (now that Garmin has taken over UPS AT) I can't get
my GX-65 upgraded to a GX-60 by sending it back to the factory. I'm not too
keen on buying a Garmin 430 at this point (every time I think I'm done
spending money on this airplane something else comes along) so I'm looking
for some compromise here that won't break the bank.
Dean Psiropoulos
RV-6A N197DM
Finishing panel and wiring, ya hoo!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Use of GPS......... |
5/5/2006
Responding to a previous posting by Bo, copied below.
Hello Listers, I want to express my appreciation for all who posted on this
subject. It has been an exemplary exchange of reasonable and useful opinions
and facts. I'd like to throw in some tidbits that may have some value:
1) From NACO one may purchase a CD-ROM that contains a digital navaid file.
http://naco.faa.gov/ecomp/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=DAICD
This CD-ROM provides the lat long location of navaids, including localizers.
Be careful when using this data though because the format may be slightly
different than that contained in your GPS box.
2) An examination of localizer installations shows that the DME antenna and
the localizer antenna are not precisely co located. The DME antenna is
usually mounted on the electronic shelter that is a short distance away from
the localizer antenna array.
3) When flying an approach, regardless of which kind of approach, keep
clearly in mind what distance you are reading on your GPS display.
A) Is it to the next fix on the approach sequence as is typical in a
published RNAV (GPS) approach? (The runway end itself is usually the final
fix in this sequence).
B) Is it the "DME" distance to the geographical location of the localizer /
DME antennas on a published ILS or localizer approach? In which case the
runway end "distance to" reading should appear printed on the approach
plate.
C) Is it the distance to some navaid such as an ADF, VOR, VORTAC, or compass
locater?
D) Is it the distance to some named five letter fix located on the field?
F) Is it the distance to some named five letter missed approach point?
G) Is it the distance to a five letter named fix at the end of the runway?
H) Is it the distance to the lat long printed for the field on the approach
plate that you have entered into your GPS?
You get the idea -- pay close attention to what the distance to number
represents.
4) My tendency when flying ILS approaches is to fly the approach using my
SL-30 as the primary navigation device feeding my external CDI and use my
Garmin GNS 430 as a "big picture" aid and set up the GPS "navigating to"
point as desired. This GPS navigating to point is usually either the
localizer or the runway end depending upon the approach information
available. I feel that this gives me the best combination of precision and
big picture.
OC
From: Kelly McMullen <kellym(at)aviating.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Use of GPS in lieu of ADF and DME, was:
Converting
IFR GPS to Terminal
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: Kelly McMullen
Bob, I think the only thing that is added is that you have to verify
that the DME location is in the database, especially where it is a
loc/dme approach where it presumably is at the far end of the runway, at
the Loc antenna. I don't know that all of those are in a non-approach
GPS data base. Otherwise I agree with everything else you are presenting.
Bo
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI |
Can anyone tell me the difference between the
GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem to have the
same features.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI |
5/16/2006
Responding to a previous posting by brinker@cox-internet.com.
Hello Randy, I think that Mid Continent makes the GI-106A for Garmin. They
may be identical except for labeling. You could check with Mid Continent to
confirm.
http://www.mcico.com/master1.html?contact.html&1
OC
Avionics-List message posted by: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Can anyone tell me the difference between the
GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem to have the
same features.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI |
There is a difference in the annunciator lights. I think the GI-106 is
missing either the BC or GPS annunciator.
Greg
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Brinker
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 2:07 PM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Avionics-List: GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI
>
> --> <brinker@cox-internet.com>
>
> Can anyone tell me the difference between the
> GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
> I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem
> to have the same features.
>
> Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 05/15/06 |
A local avionics shop told me that only the name is different.
Mid-Continent supposedly makes both units.
Regards, Bruce McGregor
>
>
> From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
> Subject: Avionics-List: GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI
>
>
> Can anyone tell me the difference between the
> GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI/LOC/GS ?
> I have looked at the Garmin description on both and they seem to have the
> same features.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | GARMIN GI-106A VS. MD200-306 CDI |
5/17/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Brinker"
<brinker@cox-internet.com>
Hello Again Randy, I have a single GI-106A being fed selectively by either a
Garmin GNS 430 or an SL-30.
The change over between the two sources is done by a split lighted push
button switch that activates a Northern Airborne Technologies RS 16-001 Data
Switch. Each push of the push button switch changes the lighted portion of
the push button switch and causes a shift from one navigation source to the
other.
The GI-106A has three light indications on its face. "NAV" is lighted when
the SL-30 is feeding the CDI. "GPS" is lighted when the GPS portion of the
GNS 430 is feeding the CDI. "VLOC" is lighted when the VOR or localizer
portion of the GNS 430 is feeding the CDI. There is no back course light or
indication on the GI-106A.
The SL-30 does have both a BC selection and an indication on the display on
the box itself.
As I wrote previously I normally use the SL-30 to feed the external CDI for
VOR, Localizer, or ILS approaches and the GNS 430 to provide big picture
situational awareness. I am very pleased with this equipment and feel that
the SL-30 is one of the most capable pieces of avionics gear in existence.
OC
From: "Brinker" <brinker@cox-internet.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List:
--> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Brinker"
<brinker@cox-internet.com>
Thanks John I thought they we're both manufactured by mid cont.
but since Garmin sells both it has been somewhat confusing to me. I have
sent Mid Cont. an email so maybe I can get to the bottom of this. I would
like to order a cdi/gs/loc and figured one of these 2 would be my best bet
since Im' also going with a sl30. And they are priced close.
Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | ELT Antenna Placement |
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Dan
Beadle"
I am building RV8. I am trying to figure out all the antenna placements
before closing up the wings.
......skip.......* ELT - should be on top - maybe just ahead of Vert
Stab.....skip
5/18/2006
Hello Dan, One of my friends commented that I had my ELT antenna installed
with
improper orientation. I said "Fine, tell me just exactly what attitude my
fuselage will be in when I am finished crashing and I will reinstall my
antenna accordingly." He smiled and got the point.
What attitude will your fuselage be in when you finish crashing?
OC
PS: The garden variety 121.5 Mhz ELT is just congressionally mandated dead
weight. Put the ELT in because you have to. Carry a personal locator beacon
because you want to. http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html. A cell phone
and a hand held VHF comm radio are also beneficial.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cliff Hoyle" <c.hoyle(at)comcast.net> |
Does anyone have the pin out diagram for a Terra TX 720 Transceiver?
Cliff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim and Vivian" <jimscjs(at)mbay.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Old Terra Radio |
Cliff
I'll check tomorrow.
Jim Selby
831 883-1266
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cliff Hoyle" <c.hoyle(at)comcast.net>
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2006 5:12 PM
Subject: Avionics-List: Old Terra Radio
>
> Does anyone have the pin out diagram for a Terra TX 720 Transceiver?
> Cliff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Old Terra Radio |
Cc: c.hoyle(at)comcast.net
>Does anyone have the pin out diagram for a Terra TX 720 Transceiver?
>Cliff
I have an installation manual, 8 pages. I'll put it through a scanner tonight.
Cliff: Please confirm that a fairly large image file is OK at this address. "Cliff
Hoyle"
--
--> Life begins at ovulation. Ladies should endeavor to get every young life fertilized.
<--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics BBS Forums |
Hello Listers,
I just wanted to send out a reminder to all of the Listers regarding the new-ish
BBS (Bulletin Board System) Forums that are available at Matronics for the Email
Lists. The BBS Forums give you Web-based access into the same email content
that is generated by the Email Lists. When an email message is posted to
any of the email lists, a copy of the message is also copied to the respective
List forum section on in the BBS Forums. By the same token, when a message is
posted within the BBS Forum interface context, it will also be posted to the
respective email list.
Basically, the BBS Forums give you yet another method of accessing the Matronics
Email List content. Some people prefer email, some prefer web forums; now you
can have it either way or both with the Matronics Lists!
You'll have to register for a login/password on the BBS Forum to _post_ from the
BBS, but you can view message content without registering for an account. To
Register for an account, look for the link at the top of the main BBS Forum
page entitled "Register". Click on it and follow the instructions. Site Administrator
approval will be required (to keep spammers out), but I will try to
get these approved in less than 24 hours.
If you haven't yet taken a look at the Matronics Email List content over on the
BBS Forum, surf on over and take a peek. Its pretty cool. The URL is:
http://forums.matronics.com
I want to stress that the BBS Forums are simply an adjunct to the existing Matronics
Email Lists; another way of viewing and interacting with the Matronics List
content. If you like Email, great. If you like Web Forums, great. If you
like both, great. Its up to you how you view and create your content.
You will also find a URL link at the bottom of this email called Matronics List
Features Navigator. You can click on this link at any time to find URL links
to all of the other great features available on the Matronics site like the Archive
Search Engine, List Browse, List Download, FAQs, Wiki, and lots more.
There is a specific Navigator for each Email List and the link for this specific
List is shown below.
Thanks for all the great list participation and support; it is greatly appreciated!
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter Davidson" <pdavidson(at)familynet.net> |
| Subject: | Century IV Schematics |
I was wondering if anyone on here has an install manual or the schematics
for a Century IV autopilot system.
Thanks
Peter D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Morrisey" <donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396 |
I'm hoping to get some insight and opinions on the avionics list regarding =
using Anywhere map w/Weather versus the Garmin 396.
=20
The cost difference is substantial and I'd like to know from anyone who has=
experience with both systems whether or not it's ultimately worth it.
=20
I am strictly a VFR pilot. I like the Anywhere map system because it is a =
lower initial cost and I would not have to add weather right away, particul=
arly while I'm flying off my 40 hours. =20
=20
With my engine on the way and the purchase of all the firewall forward mate=
rial and panel instruments any deferral of cost is a benefit. I can start =
with The Anywhere Map/GPS system for $695 and the add to it as necessary.
=20
I also like Anywhere because it is upgradeable as time goes by. Downside i=
s 3 components as opposed to one with the Garmin. Ultimately I understand =
that the Garmin is probably a superior instrument and ...well....it's a Gar=
min.
=20
For the kind of flying I do I'm just not sure the cost or benefits would be=
worthwhile or realized.
=20
Any opinion either way would be greatly appreciated.
=20
Thanks. Don...
_________________________________________________________________
Join the next generation of Hotmail and you could win the adventure of a li=
fetime
http://www.imagine-msn.com/minisites/sweepstakes/mail/register.aspx=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Clark" <jclarkmail(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396 |
I have and have used both.
Both require a separate item to get the weather. The Garmin has a remote
antenna that might get used or one may use the "stubby" that attaches
directly.
The both give you the same basic big picture with the weather.
The user interfaces are different obviously and that is a big item based on
user preferences.
The AMM Wx is cheaper and has more features. The Garmin is more integrated
so to speak and has dedicated buttons (this is a plus and a minus).
If you are comfortable with using the Ipaq in the cockpit then I think you
would be happy with the AWM Wx. If you are the type that just want to know
the three buttons to press then the Garmin is probably better.
Both are really nice products and both have helped me tremendously on long
trips.
James
... contact me off list for more details (james(at)nextupventures.com)
On 5/28/06, Don Morrisey wrote:
>
> donmorrisey(at)hotmail.com>
>
> I'm hoping to get some insight and opinions on the avionics list regardin=
g
> =3D
> using Anywhere map w/Weather versus the Garmin 396.
> =3D20
> The cost difference is substantial and I'd like to know from anyone who
> has=3D
> experience with both systems whether or not it's ultimately worth it.
> =3D20
> I am strictly a VFR pilot. I like the Anywhere map system because it is =
a
> =3D
> lower initial cost and I would not have to add weather right away,
> particul=3D
> arly while I'm flying off my 40 hours. =3D20
> =3D20
> With my engine on the way and the purchase of all the firewall forward
> mate=3D
> rial and panel instruments any deferral of cost is a benefit. I can star=
t
> =3D
> with The Anywhere Map/GPS system for $695 and the add to it as necessary.
> =3D20
> I also like Anywhere because it is upgradeable as time goes by. Downside
> i=3D
> s 3 components as opposed to one with the Garmin. Ultimately I understan=
d
> =3D
> that the Garmin is probably a superior instrument and ...well....it's a
> Gar=3D
> min.
> =3D20
> For the kind of flying I do I'm just not sure the cost or benefits would
> be=3D
> worthwhile or realized.
> =3D20
> Any opinion either way would be greatly appreciated.
> =3D20
> Thanks. Don...
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the next generation of Hotmail and you could win the adventure of a
> li=3D
> fetime
> http://www.imagine-msn.com/minisites/sweepstakes/mail/register.aspx=3D
>
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
--=20
This is an alternate email. Please continue to email me at
james(at)nextupventures.com .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396 |
Resonding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by:
DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com
5/29/2006
Hello Doug, You wrote: " .....skip.....I have the $50/mo
subscription.....skip....."
Wow! I had no idea weather info was that expensive. What do you get for your
$50 and from who? Is there some less costly subscription method? Thanks.
OC
<< Don, I have no experience with other systems and I am computer stupid, so
I
got the G396. I have the $50/mo subscription so I can use it in the RV-7 and
the company Citation. It has helped me several times in each aircraft. I
think I would prefer the 396 to the radar in the Citation. I can see the
whole
picture....no attenuation Good luck. Doug Preston >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396 |
| From: | "Dan Beadle" <Dan.Beadle(at)hq.inclinesoftworks.com> |
I have XM weather on my MX20. About $50. Well worth it.
Although I have on board radar and stormscope, this gives a lot more
information for planning:
- Winds aloft for each 3,000' up into the mid flight levels
- Metars (visual & text)
- TAFs (text)
- TFRs (visual & text)
- Clouds
- Front movement
- Nexrad satellite
- Lightning
Oh, and it does have music....
I find it useful to have the Nexrad working in conjunction with on board
RADAR. RADAR can be attenuated, not letting you see beyond the nearest
storm. Nexrad lets me see "over the horizon".
In my RV, I will probably go with a 396 to get most of these features at
an affordable cost.
For me, the $50 is $600 a year - about the same as the cost of my Jepps.
Just a cost of doing business, of flying safely.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:14 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396
Resonding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by:
DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com
5/29/2006
Hello Doug, You wrote: " .....skip.....I have the $50/mo
subscription.....skip....."
Wow! I had no idea weather info was that expensive. What do you get for
your
$50 and from who? Is there some less costly subscription method? Thanks.
OC
<< Don, I have no experience with other systems and I am computer
stupid, so
I
got the G396. I have the $50/mo subscription so I can use it in the RV-7
and
the company Citation. It has helped me several times in each aircraft.
I
think I would prefer the 396 to the radar in the Citation. I can see
the
whole
picture....no attenuation Good luck. Doug Preston >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jesse Saint" <jesse(at)itecusa.org> |
| Subject: | Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396 |
XM weather at first look seems expensive at $50/month, but if you fly a lot,
it pays for itself very quickly. For example, these days that would be
about 12 gallons of 100LL. If you can make a flight without having to
divert because of weather that you can't see around or through, you have
paid for that month just with the fuel savings. On the other hand, if you
divert because of the weather on your screen when you might have decided to
fly through it because you didn't realize how severe it was (or were in the
soup and didn't see the nasty stuff) and had problems and either messed up
your plane and possibly your body and those of your passengers, that start
sounding really cheap. If you are flying day VFR, then $50 is very
expensive possibly, unless you are trying to decide if you can make if VFR
(which the XM can very often tell you) then the first example comes back
into play. In some cases you can even save fuel by using the winds aloft
info, although this doesn't seem to have made much difference in N256H over
200 hrs of flying. It is just fast enough that you are best off picking an
efficient flight level with good weather and not worrying too much about the
different winds at different levels/altitudes.
Jesse Saint
I-TEC, Inc.
jesse(at)itecusa.org
www.itecusa.org
W: 352-465-4545
C: 352-427-0285
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dan Beadle
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 9:33 AM
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396
I have XM weather on my MX20. About $50. Well worth it.
Although I have on board radar and stormscope, this gives a lot more
information for planning:
- Winds aloft for each 3,000' up into the mid flight levels
- Metars (visual & text)
- TAFs (text)
- TFRs (visual & text)
- Clouds
- Front movement
- Nexrad satellite
- Lightning
Oh, and it does have music....
I find it useful to have the Nexrad working in conjunction with on board
RADAR. RADAR can be attenuated, not letting you see beyond the nearest
storm. Nexrad lets me see "over the horizon".
In my RV, I will probably go with a 396 to get most of these features at
an affordable cost.
For me, the $50 is $600 a year - about the same as the cost of my Jepps.
Just a cost of doing business, of flying safely.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
bakerocb(at)cox.net
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:14 AM
Subject: Avionics-List: Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396
Resonding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by:
DOUGPFLYRV(at)aol.com
5/29/2006
Hello Doug, You wrote: " .....skip.....I have the $50/mo
subscription.....skip....."
Wow! I had no idea weather info was that expensive. What do you get for
your
$50 and from who? Is there some less costly subscription method? Thanks.
OC
<< Don, I have no experience with other systems and I am computer
stupid, so
I
got the G396. I have the $50/mo subscription so I can use it in the RV-7
and
the company Citation. It has helped me several times in each aircraft.
I
think I would prefer the 396 to the radar in the Citation. I can see
the
whole
picture....no attenuation Good luck. Doug Preston >>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bruce McGregor" <bruceflys(at)comcast.net> |
| Subject: | Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396 |
Take a look at True Flight's unit: www.aviationsafety.com
The screen is significantly bigger and the brightest that I have seen in GA
aircraft. The unit really isn't portable, but mounts readily on a RAM
swivel with the XM receiver velcroed under the panel and the antennas placed
on the glareshield. It offers approach plates and approach depictions,
although not for leagl IFR use. Monthly downloads of approach plates and
base map updates costs $199/yr, but saves the cost of paper subscriptions.
After three months use, I am satisfied with mine. Operation does require
some study and practice.
Happy shopping, Bruce McGregor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Two New Email Lists at Matronics and Wiki Reminder! |
Dear Listers,
I have added two new email Lists to the Matronics Line up today. These include
a Continental engine List and a Lightning aircraft List:
===========
continental-list(at)matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Continental-List
Everything related to the Continental aircraft engine. Sky's the limit on discussions
here.
===========
===========
lightning-list(at)matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
This is an exciting new design from Arion Aircraft LLC in Shelbyville Tennessee. Pete Krotje has a very nice web site on the aircraft that can be found here: http://www.arionaircraft.com/
===========
Also, if you haven't checked out the new Matronics Aircraft Wiki, swing by and
have a look. Remember, a Wiki is only as good as the content that the members
put into it. Have a look over some of the sections, and if you've got some interesting
or useful, please add it to the Wiki! Its all about YOU! :-) The
URL for the Matronics Wiki is:
http://wiki.matronics.com
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Paul McAllister" <paul.mcallister(at)qia.net> |
| Subject: | Anywhere Map w/WX versus Garmin 396 |
Hi Don,
I have the Airgator systems on my PDA, which is very similar to the Anywhere
product. I like it for a number of reasons. If you buy an up market PDA
then the screen size is greater than the 396. The user interface is pretty
slick and it has some a few "nice to have, but not essential" features. I
also find the product is continually being enhanced. I don't know about the
Anywhere system, but its possible to configure an Airgator system with a
serial cable which plugs into a remote box so you can get rid of bunches of
cables running everywhere.
I find its handy to have PDA because it does other stuff. I have a set of
approach plates on it and although they are hard to use on the small screen
in a bind they are sure better than nothing. I am finding that more places
have WiFi hot spots, so its handy to be able to browse the internet at some
of my destinations.
Finally, if you ever want to its an easy upgrade to one of the palm PC which
give a lot of screen real estate.
If you would like to know more about the Airgator system feel free to
contact me off list.
Paul
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Enclosure Support |
Dear Listers,
Over the years, I have resisted the urge to enable enclosure support on the Matronics
Lists for a number of reasons relating to performance, capacity, capability,
and security. However, its now 2006 and most everyone using email these
days is on an email client that, at some level, supports the viewing and handling
of enclosures. I get a fair amount of email each month from people on the
various Lists asking why their posts of this or that picture didn't go through.
Back quite a while ago by popular request, I enabled enclosure support for a few
Lists such as the RV10-List, Kolb-List, and the Tailwind-List. Contrary to
my fears, there really hasn't been any significant issues on these Lists relating
to the advent of enclosure support and for the most part, members have policed
themselves well with respect to the size of things they have posted.
Having enclosures enabled on some Lists and not others has given me a fair amount
of headaches with respect to filtering messages and content since the formats
are often quite different between a typical MIME encoded message and a generic
plain-text message. The spammers are getting more cleaver all the time and
are constantly trying to thwart my best efforts at keeping them from posting
to the Lists.
So, for these reasons, I've have decided to go ahead and enable limited enclosure
posting on all of the email Lists at Matronics. This will not only increase
the utility of the Lists, but will afford me a better opportunity to filter
out the chaff.
Here are some of the features and limits of enclosures on the Matronics Lists:
1) Enclosures will only be posted to the Real Time version of the
Lists.
2) Enclosures will NOT be included in the Daily Digest version of
the Lists.
3) Enclosures WILL BE forwarded on to the BBS Forum Web site.
4) Enclosures will NOT be appended to the Archives.
5) Enclosures will NOT be available in the List Browse feature.
6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed:
jpg, bmp, gif, txt, xls, pdf, and doc
All other enclosures types will be rejected and email returned to
sender. The enclosure types listed above are relatively safe from
a virus standpoint and don't pose a particularly large security risk.
7) !! All incoming enclosures will be scanned for viruses prior to posting
to the List. This is done in real time and will not slow down
the process of posting the message !!
Here are some rules for posting enclosures. Failure to abide by these rules could
result in the removal of a subscriber's email address from the Lists.
1) Pay attention to what you are posting!! Make sure that the files
you are enclosing aren't HUGE (greater that 1MB). Remember that there
are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. If you post
30MB worth of pictures, you are placing an unnecessary burden on these
folks and the rest of us, for that matter.
2) SCALE YOUR PICTURES DOWN!!! I don't want to see huge 3000 x 2000
pictures getting posted that are 3 or 4MB each. This is just
unacceptable. Use a program such as Photoshop to scale the picture
down to something on the order of 800 x 600 and try to keep the
file size to less-than 200KB, preferably much less.
Microsoft has a really awesome utility available for free that allows
you to Right-Click on a picture in Explorer and automatically
scale it down and resave it. This is a great utility - get it, use it!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Look for the link "Image Resizer"
3) !! This would seem to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Do not
post anything that would be considered offensive by your grandmother.
And you know what I'm saying; I don't want to see anything even
questionable. !!
4) REMEMBER THIS: If you post a 1MB enclosure to a List with 1000 members
subscribed, your 1MB enclosure must be resent 1000 times amounting
to 1MB X 1000 = 1 Gigabyte of network traffic!! BE CAREFUL and BE COURTEOUS!
I hope everyone will enjoy the added functionality of enclosures. Please police
yourself and use good judgement when posting messages with enclosures using
the guidelines I've outlined above.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Pilot" <n91tr(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/04/06 |
please take me off of these lists.
Thanks,
Tom
>From: Avionics-List Digest Server <avionics-list(at)matronics.com>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To: Avionics-List Digest List
>Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/04/06
>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 23:55:26 -0700
>
>*
>
> =================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> =================================================
>
>Today's complete Avionics-List Digest can also be found in either of the
>two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
>in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
>and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
>of the Avionics-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
>such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
>HTML Version:
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2006-06-04.html
>
>Text Version:
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2006-06-04.txt
>
>
> ===============================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ===============================================
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Avionics-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sun 06/04/06: 0
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Today's Message Index:
>----------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KIM R JOHNSON" <krjloco(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/04/06 |
Take me off to, please
>From: "Tom Pilot" <n91tr(at)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Avionics-List: RE: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/04/06
>Date: Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:44:36 -0500
>
>
>please take me off of these lists.
>
>Thanks,
>Tom
>
>
>>From: Avionics-List Digest Server <avionics-list(at)matronics.com>
>>Reply-To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
>>To: Avionics-List Digest List
>>Subject: Avionics-List Digest: 0 Msgs - 06/04/06
>>Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2006 23:55:26 -0700
>>
>>*
>>
>> =================================================
>> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
>> =================================================
>>
>>Today's complete Avionics-List Digest can also be found in either of the
>>two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
>>in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
>>and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
>>of the Avionics-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
>>such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>>
>>HTML Version:
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2006-06-04.html
>>
>>Text Version:
>>
>>
>>http://www.matronics.com/digest/avionics-list/Digest.Avionics-List.2006-06-04.txt
>>
>>
>> ===============================================
>> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
>> ===============================================
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>> Avionics-List Digest Archive
>> ---
>> Total Messages Posted Sun 06/04/06: 0
>> ----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>Today's Message Index:
>>----------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List
>http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wes Bunker" <wesbflyer(at)surewest.net> |
As my Momma usta ask: "Were you born that dense, or have you been
practicing?"
Wes
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tru Trak ADI Pilot II |
I'm interested in purchasing a Tru Trak ADI Pilot II. Does anyone sell at a
better price than what is advertised? Willing to pay by check so no credit
card charges to the lucky seller. Who has had the best service on Tru Trak
items?...Maybe I should wait for Oshkosh. Any comments?
Pat Long
PGLong(at)aol.com
N120PL
RV4
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
Do Not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | IFR Requirements |
6/13/2006
Responding to a previous posting (partially copied below) by John Erickson
on this subject.
Hello John, Thank you for the labor that you invested to create your posting
for the benefit of other pilots and builders.
I'd like to note that this information is also available in a condensed
tabular form from me upon direct e mail request.
Also see pages 49 and 50 of the June 2006 issue of Kitplanes magazine for a
published version of this table and the introduction.
OC
From: "John Erickson" <john.erickson(at)cox.net>
Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: IFR Requirements
Dan, A lot of people will respond with what they think or what they heard.
Here's what I have in writing. Note that while most Experimental Operations
Limits are fairly standardized, they may differ, so check the Ops Limits
issued
for the aircraft you're putting the EFIS in for specifics.
Here's what my Ops Limits say under the Phase II section.
"4. After completion of phase I flight testing, unless appropriately
equipeed for night and/or instrument flist as listed in FAR 91.205 (b
through e), this aircraft is to be operated under day only VFR."
OK, pretty straightforward. On to what FAR 91.205 b through e
says......skip...>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <joplin1(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
I just now subscribed to the Avionics list in hopes that I can get some
experts advice. I know absolutely nothing about radio equipment so
please understand that you are talking to a dummy.
7 years ago I bought a Harmon Rocket which is equipped with a KLX135A
Gps/Comm and a KY97A Transceiver. I also have a KT76A Transponder, A
Rocky Mountain Encoder, and a SPA-400 Sigtronics Intercom with a Music
Switcher (I believe it is a STEREOCOM-400 ). The audio panel consists
of three separate toggle switches. One switch selects the radio to
transmit from. The other two turn the respective receivers ON or OFF
This system has worked well for me until just recently when I started
having transmitter problems. Both of my receivers are excellent under
all conditions. I sent my radios to Aurora for a bench check but they
didn't find any problems with them.
I'm not sure how good my transmissions have been over the years but I
didn't get any complaints. Lately though I am being advised that my
transmissions are weak, scratch and barely readable when I am only a few
miles away from a station. Also, I have been getting an annoying, kind
of hollow tinny background noise in my headset when I transmit from my
KLX135A while the KY97A is also turned ON. The noise becomes less
troublesome if I turn the volume down on the KY97A. When I transmit
from the KY97A with the KLX135A turned ON, I don't hear the noise in my
head set, but it too is reported to be weak and scratchy. Transmitting
from either radio with the other completely turned off does not solve
the problem either. I still send out weak and scratchy transmissions.
I guess I must have some deteriorating wire or possibly some other kind
of interference that is cutting down the signal strength before it
reaches the antennas. Medford Jet Center Avionics techs tell me a big
part of my problem is caused by the close proximity of the 45 degree
whip antennas between the gear legs. The antennas are only 18 inches
apart. They say the minimum recommended is 36 inches. I really don't
have an option to relocate the antennas. I suppose if all else fails I
can yank the KY97A out and use the KLX135A as my single flip-flop. I
think most Rockets and RVs have only one comm anyway. I wonder what
would happen if I disconnect the coax cable from the KY97A antenna.
Would that have the same affect as removing the radio completely, or
will the dead antenna still interfer with the KLX135A transmissions?
The Jet Center Avionics shop looked at my aircraft and determined that I
have poorer quality coax cable and unshielded wiring. They estimate 6
hours labor plus parts which probably shouldn't run much over $600.
That is probably the best way to go.
I just though I would toss this problem out there and see if any of you
have had experience with something similar.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Well just using logic and no special knowledge the closeness of the
antennas cannot be the problem.
You have been using them for 7 years with no problem so there is no
reason for the closeness to be causing weak transmission now. It is not
ideal to have them so close and although it is not the major problem it
would be worthwhile reviewing your options. On top of the fuselage would
be a good place to move one of the antennas.
The closeness can cause feedback into the non transmitting receiver
though which could cause your 'tinny noises' and I would be a bit
concerned about protecting the receive chips in the non transmitting
unit since they will get a belt of power which cannot do them much good.
All that is peripheral to your main problem of weak transmissions. Get a
'Ham' to check your VSWR on each feeder antenna system which will check
the coax, its connectors and the antennas. Funny though that BOTH
feeders and antenna connections seem to be acting up all of a sudden.
Anyway the VSWR check will also reconfirm that the power output from the
transmitters is normal.
John
From: John
I just now subscribed to the Avionics list in hopes that I can get
some experts advice. I know absolutely nothing about radio equipment so
please understand that you are talking to a dummy.
7 years ago I bought a Harmon Rocket which is equipped with a KLX135A
Gps/Comm and a KY97A Transceiver. I also have a KT76A Transponder, A
Rocky Mountain Encoder, and a SPA-400 Sigtronics Intercom with a Music
Switcher (I believe it is a STEREOCOM-400 ). The audio panel consists
of three separate toggle switches. One switch selects the radio to
transmit from. The other two turn the respective receivers ON or OFF
This system has worked well for me until just recently when I started
having transmitter problems. Both of my receivers are excellent under
all conditions. I sent my radios to Aurora for a bench check but they
didn't find any problems with them.
I'm not sure how good my transmissions have been over the years but I
didn't get any complaints. Lately though I am being advised that my
transmissions are weak, scratch and barely readable when I am only a few
miles away from a station. Also, I have been getting an annoying, kind
of hollow tinny background noise in my headset when I transmit from my
KLX135A while the KY97A is also turned ON. The noise becomes less
troublesome if I turn the volume down on the KY97A. When I transmit
from the KY97A with the KLX135A turned ON, I don't hear the noise in my
head set, but it too is reported to be weak and scratchy. Transmitting
from either radio with the other completely turned off does not solve
the problem either. I still send out weak and scratchy transmissions.
I guess I must have some deteriorating wire or possibly some other
kind of interference that is cutting down the signal strength before it
reaches the antennas. Medford Jet Center Avionics techs tell me a big
part of my problem is caused by the close proximity of the 45 degree
whip antennas between the gear legs. The antennas are only 18 inches
apart. They say the minimum recommended is 36 inches. I really don't
have an option to relocate the antennas. I suppose if all else fails I
can yank the KY97A out and use the KLX135A as my single flip-flop. I
think most Rockets and RVs have only one comm anyway. I wonder what
would happen if I disconnect the coax cable from the KY97A antenna.
Would that have the same affect as removing the radio completely, or
will the dead antenna still interfer with the KLX135A transmissions?
The Jet Center Avionics shop looked at my aircraft and determined that
I have poorer quality coax cable and unshielded wiring. They estimate 6
hours labor plus parts which probably shouldn't run much over $600.
That is probably the best way to go.
I just though I would toss this problem out there and see if any of
you have had experience with something similar.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
John, it all worked fine before, so adding $600 worth of shielding is
probably just throwing away good money! I'd check both coax connections to
the antennas for broken center conductors and corrosion, and check the base of
each antenna for good grounding (corrosion can prevent that). Don't forget to
check any coax spices or extensions for corrosion, also. If you've enough
coax, swap antennas, and see if the problem changes in some way or goes away.
If
there is absolutely no change after swapping the coax leads, the problem is
likely in one of the radios (overmod or bad finals on the transmitter, loss of
selectivity on the receiver). Have an SWR check done on both systems before
you spend good money to fix a problem that could just be a bad antenna or
connection!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ECLarsen81(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Since both antennas are on the bottom, I say it's a good bet that the
interface has some corrosion.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
I am a ham, and the closest thing a ham would have to check SWR on VHF air
frequencies would be a 2 meter SWR meter (144-148mhz). It just doesn't have the
range to check aircraft VHF systems.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Carl,
The 2 metre band meters work perfectly well in the VHF airband and are
useful even in the nav band down to 108 Mhz.
John
From: KD4ZHA(at)aol.com
I am a ham, and the closest thing a ham would have to check SWR on VHF
air frequencies would be a 2 meter SWR meter (144-148mhz). It just
doesn't have the range to check aircraft VHF systems.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Cool! Mine won't even twitch on VHF air! I guess the bandwidth is too
narrow on mine! Good luck!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
I currently have two:
WELZ swr and power meter type SP-220
1.8 TO 200Mhz covering power ranges up to
2, 20 and 200 watts, made in Tokyo Japan and bought as suitable for the
2 metre band.
HANSEN SWR 50B which I have used regularly down to 118 Mhz and have no
doubt will go further.
It does not specify on the meter its frequency range and I have mislaid
its instruction booklet but it was bought for the 2 metre band. Also
made in Japan.
These are the sort of meters that can be bought in ham shops and Radio
Spares. If you look inside them they are broadly similar in design and
there is nothing normally which would restrict them to a narrow
bandwidth.
Maybe yours works on a different principle.
John
From: KD4ZHA(at)aol.com
Cool! Mine won't even twitch on VHF air! I guess the bandwidth is
too narrow on mine! Good luck!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <joplin1(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
I want to thank all of you for your help.
I think a VSWR check might be a good place to start. I am not sure how to locate
a 'ham' radio operator in my area. I will give Radio Shack a call tomorrow.
Maybe they can provide me with a good source.
All of you have stressed the importance of good coax connectors and clean tight
grounds where the antennas attach to the aircraft. That will be my next step.
I will save the harness re-wire as a last resort.
I have tried three different headsets ... the two SoftComm headsets that came with
the aircraft and a LightSPEED QFRXCCc which I purchased in November. I made
a few cell phone calls using the Aux Audio Input feature of the LightSPEED.
I can receive the dial-up ASOS weather reports anywhere in the country loud
and clear. Somehow, the cell phone antenna is strong enough to ring the number,
but too weak to carry on a conversation. The answering party reports heavy
static and broken transmissions. I hope my cell phone experiment didn't damage
anything. I started having the radio problems about the same time I used the
Aux Audio Input feature of the LightSPEED.
It is going to take me awhile to do the trouble shooting, but I will report everything
I learn it to the list.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ECLarsen81(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Check the yellow pages for your local chapter of the ARRL, they are listed in
mine, may be in yours as well. They can put you in touch with registered
ham's.
Ed Larsen
In a message dated 6/18/2006 10:59:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joplin1(at)charter.net writes:
I want to thank all of you for your help.
I think a VSWR check might be a good place to start. I am not sure how to
locate a 'ham' radio operator in my area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shinden33" <shinden33(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Blue Mountain EFIS |
Received: from barracuda.matronics.com (barracuda.matronics.com [64.81.74.21])
by matronics.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k5J3s0xx009751;
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1150689238-15996-27-0
X-Barracuda-URL: http://64.81.74.21:8000/cgi-bin/mark.cgi
Received: from pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net (pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net
[207.69.195.64])
by barracuda.matronics.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP
Received: from dialup-4.131.220.93.dial1.sanjose1.level3.net ([4.131.220.93] helo=onyx)
by pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10)
, ,
,
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Blue Mountain EFIS
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----------=_1150689240-6503-1"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook CWS, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180
X-Barracuda-Bayes: INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1100 1.0000 -1.3333
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1100 1.0000 -1.3333;INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1100 1.0000 -1.3333;INNOCENT
GLOBAL 0.1100 1.0000 -1.3333;INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.1100 1.0000 -1.3333;INNOCENT
GLOBAL 0.1100 1.0000 -1.3333
X-Virus-Scanned: by Barracuda Spam Firewall at matronics.com
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: -1.33
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=-1.33 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=3.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=3.0
KILL_LEVEL=5.0 tests
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.02, rules version 3.0.15061
Rule breakdown below pts rule name description
---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.56 on 64.81.74.4
This is a multi-part message in MIME format...
------------=_1150689240-6503-1
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
All,
Please excuse my intrusion but I was referred to your community for advice.
I own Yak-52 and am considering adding a Blue Mountain EFIS/LITE gen 4 to my
panel in favor of the current RMI. I need EHSI capability, which limits my
options but have had mixed advice on the blue mountain unit. Can anyone
impart some general knowledge, experiences, stories, etc?
Best Regards,
Scott Glaser
Yak-52
------------=_1150689240-6503-1
Content-Type: text/plain; name="trailer.txt"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="trailer.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
MIME-Version: 1.0
Matt Dralle
------------=_1150689240-6503-1--
Matt Dralle
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
If the hams in your area aren't listed under ARRL in the yellow pages try
asking at an electronics shop. there may even be a shop in your area that
specializes in selling amateur radio equipment. That would be another good
place to start.
Noel V01 PL
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
ECLarsen81(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:39 AM
Check the yellow pages for your local chapter of the ARRL, they are listed
in mine, may be in yours as well. They can put you in touch with registered
ham's.
Ed Larsen
In a message dated 6/18/2006 10:59:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joplin1(at)charter.net writes:
I want to thank all of you for your help.
I think a VSWR check might be a good place to start. I am not sure how to
locate a 'ham' radio operator in my area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
You are right in suspecting the Lightspeed Aux input. I did a bit of work
on a Bell 206 L that was having intermittent problems with it's HF
transmitter. The problem was traced to a loose ground in a unit called a
Cellset. This was basically a unit that allowed the cell phone to be wired
into the audio panel. The surprising thing is that a few hours before the
Cellset had been returned form the repair depot where it had been repaired
of another problem.
The problem with the Cellset was internal. Your problem may also be.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:24 AM
> To: avionics-list(at)roxy.matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
>
>
>
> I want to thank all of you for your help.
>
> I think a VSWR check might be a good place to start. I am
> not sure how to locate a 'ham' radio operator in my area. I
> will give Radio Shack a call tomorrow. Maybe they can
> provide me with a good source.
>
> All of you have stressed the importance of good coax
> connectors and clean tight grounds where the antennas attach
> to the aircraft. That will be my next step. I will save the
> harness re-wire as a last resort.
>
> I have tried three different headsets ... the two SoftComm
> headsets that came with the aircraft and a LightSPEED QFRXCCc
> which I purchased in November. I made a few cell phone calls
> using the Aux Audio Input feature of the LightSPEED. I can
> receive the dial-up ASOS weather reports anywhere in the
> country loud and clear. Somehow, the cell phone antenna is
> strong enough to ring the number, but too weak to carry on a
> conversation. The answering party reports heavy static and
> broken transmissions. I hope my cell phone experiment didn't
> damage anything. I started having the radio problems about
> the same time I used the Aux Audio Input feature of the LightSPEED.
>
> It is going to take me awhile to do the trouble shooting, but
> I will report everything I learn it to the list.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
To locate a local ham, look for a house with an "antenna farm"! Many hams
these days have the MFJ-259B which is a very good tool for checking VSWR
across the VHF band. This is a very easy test to do. One only needs to plug
the
coax from the antenna into the unit and turn a knob.
I haven't read all of this thread, but my Lightspeed 20XLs will NOT work
with a cell phone into the aux input. I believe it is due to the RF from the
cell phone's transmitter causing interference to the circuitry of the headsets.
Mine changed with location of the cell phone with respect to the headsets.
If I could have gotten the phone 20 feet away from the headsets it would
have probably been OK. I worked with Lightspeed (over the phone) when first
having them "upgraded" about 2 years ago for several weeks before giving up.
Personally, I liked the Lightspeeds better before having them overhauled.
Having said that, Lightspeed was more than willing to try to help, and offered
to
convert them back. I decided to let it ride for a while and see if they
came up with a solution and ended up just forgetting about it.
Dan Hopper K9WEK
Walton, IN
In a message dated 6/19/2006 7:24:50 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca writes:
In a message dated 6/18/2006 10:59:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
joplin1(at)charter.net writes:
I want to thank all of you for your help.
I think a VSWR check might be a good place to start. I am not sure how to
locate a 'ham' radio operator in my area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <joplin1(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
I have tried two of my SoftComm headsets as well as the LightSPEED. The headset
doesn't seem to be the problem. My KLX135A and KY97A still send out weak, scratchy
transmissions with a max range of about 15 miles. Both receivers are
excellent under all conditions.
Actually, my LightSPEED-cell phone hookup works OK on the ground with the engine
at idle RPM. I assume that all of the aluminum between me and the relay towers
degrades my cell phone antenna output when I reach altitude. But, it is
strong enough to dial out and hold a connection with a phone on the ground. The
cell phone reception is excellent, but my transmissions are mostly static and
unreadable. Also, my super loud Lycoming IO-540 engine noise needs to be filtered
out of my mike transmissions. I do get the static you talk about when
I move my cell phone close to the headset battery box, but it isn't bad when
I put the phone a couple of feet away on the opposite side of the cockpit .
The reason I mentioned my cell phone experiment was because I was concerned that
I might have damaged something in the aircraft VHF comm circuit. I'm sure one
of you would have mentioned that possibility if it is something that should
be looked at. Both radios have bench checked good.
-----------------------------
Dan wrote: my Lightspeed 20XLs will NOT work
with a cell phone into the aux input. I believe it is due to the RF from the
cell phone's transmitter causing interference to the circuitry of the headsets.
Mine changed with location of the cell phone with respect to the headsets.
If I could have gotten the phone 20 feet away from the headsets it would
have probably been OK.
--------------------------
Noel wrote:You are right in suspecting the Lightspeed Aux input. I did a bit of
work
on a Bell 206 L that was having intermittent problems with it's HF
transmitter. The problem was traced to a loose ground in a unit called a
Cellset. This was basically a unit that allowed the cell phone to be wired
into the audio panel. The surprising thing is that a few hours before the
Cellset had been returned form the repair depot where it had been repaired
of another problem. The problem with the Cellset was internal. Your problem may
also be.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Maybe I should keep quiet on this, as I don't want to create
controversy (this subject always does), but the subject has already been broached.
The
subject is cell phone use in aircraft (including your private aircraft).
I'll just say this, and then you can do the research to confirm or dispell my
statement. Cell phone use in your private aircraft is legal .... until the
wheels leave the ground! Once airborne, cell phone use can disrupt and interfere
with cell phone communications across a very wide area (line of sight just like
VHF), including emergency services. Your encrypted cell phone number is
automatically recorded as a matter of record, and you can be held accountable for
disrupting service. Don't look for it in the FAR's! It's covered by the FCC!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <joplin1(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Thanks for your input. I had planned to use my cell phone only as a back-up in
an emergency situation. I discovered that the transmitter does not work well
while airborne, although it does provide a way to receive up to the minute ASOS
weather recordings. This could provide valuable information in choosing an
alternate airport if my aircraft experienced complete electrical failure.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: KD4ZHA(at)aol.com
To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
Maybe I should keep quiet on this, as I don't want to create
controversy (this subject always does), but the subject has already been broached.
The
subject is cell phone use in aircraft (including your private aircraft).
I'll just say this, and then you can do the research to confirm or dispell my
statement. Cell phone use in your private aircraft is legal .... until the
wheels leave the ground! Once airborne, cell phone use can disrupt and interfere
with cell phone communications across a very wide area (line of sight just like
VHF), including emergency services. Your encrypted cell phone number is
automatically recorded as a matter of record, and you can be held accountable
for
disrupting service. Don't look for it in the FAR's! It's covered by the FCC!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
I agree, John! In an emergency, I'll use any and all communications I deem
necessary, including semaphore!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
No smoke signals pleeeze!!!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of KD4ZHA(at)aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 2:43 PM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
>
>
>
> I agree, John! In an emergency, I'll use any and all
> communications I deem
> necessary, including semaphore!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Audio input to video camera |
Looking for a small microphone to put in my headset earphone cup to pickup
the audio for my video camera aux microphone input. Or, would it work to use
the rear seat headset jack ear phone portion for the audio to directly input to
the camera? Would there be an impedance matching problem? Anyone done this
that could guide me thru the process?
Thanks, Pat
Pat Long
PGLong(at)aol.com
N120PL
RV4
Bay City, Michigan
3CM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Audio input to video camera |
My intercom has a "record" jack. I just used a standard rat shack patch
cord, and impedence wasn't a problem. Picked up everything that goes to the
headset. leave the squelch down to pickup engine sounds, wind noise, etc. (gets
a
little annoying, though). Do a short video and check it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <joplin1(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Several of you have advised me that an a VSWR check should be my next step. (my
radios bench checked good, receivers are excellent, but my transmissions are
weak and scratchy)
I contacted a gentleman who has a 'ham' business in town. He deals pretty much
with the shortwave spectrum, not the VHF. He told me that he doesn't have the
MFJ-259B meter. But, he feels sure that I can find someone in a local club
who does. He mentioned that the meter needs to be inserted into the feed line
between the radio and the antenna and he suspects adapters might be required
to do that. Before I start trying to find someone with a MFJ-295B, what should
I know about inserting the meter into the feed line? Remember, I am Radio Illiterate.
I just want to be sure that I can provide the 'ham' with the required
adapters and any other information that he might need. It is possible that
will have no experience with aircraft radios.
Thanks,
John Linman
To locate a local ham, look for a house with an "antenna farm"! Many hams
these days have the MFJ-259B which is a very good tool for checking VSWR
across the VHF band. This is a very easy test to do. One only needs to plug
the
coax from the antenna into the unit and turn a knob.
Dan Hopper K9WEK
Walton, IN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Connecting a VSWRmeter in the feed line involves:
unplugging the antenna from the radio;
plugging the input to the meter into the output of the radio which will
require a short lead with the appropriate plug (probably a BNC plug) on it
to suit the radio output;
plugging the antenna coax into the output of the VSWR meter (you will
probably need a UHF to BNC adapter for that assuming the antenna lead has a
BNC plug on it.)
Radio hams will be familiar with this nomenclature.
It is a simple operation and you would be well advised to get a VSWR meter
yourself for future reference once you have seen how it is done.
If the tests show the transmitters and antennas are ok as far as power and
VSWR is concerned then you will have to look at the audio input circuits. I
can't quite remember, but didn't you say you had been trying to incorporate
a mobile phone into the system?? Or was that somone else??
John
>
> Several of you have advised me that an a VSWR check should be my next
> step. (my radios bench checked good, receivers are excellent, but my
> transmissions are weak and scratchy)
>
> I contacted a gentleman who has a 'ham' business in town. He deals pretty
> much with the shortwave spectrum, not the VHF. He told me that he doesn't
> have the MFJ-259B meter. But, he feels sure that I can find someone in a
> local club who does. He mentioned that the meter needs to be inserted
> into the feed line between the radio and the antenna and he suspects
> adapters might be required to do that. Before I start trying to find
> someone with a MFJ-295B, what should I know about inserting the meter into
> the feed line? Remember, I am Radio Illiterate. I just want to be sure
> that I can provide the 'ham' with the required adapters and any other
> information that he might need. It is possible that will have no
> experience with aircraft radios.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Linman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Audio input to video camera |
That record jack is probably a 1-V p-p line out jack it should work properly
when plugged into your line input on your camera. You will probably have
problems if you plug it into the mic input. Check the spec on the "Record"
out in the documentation for your audio panel.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of KD4ZHA(at)aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:54 AM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Audio input to video camera
>
>
>
> My intercom has a "record" jack. I just used a standard rat
> shack patch
> cord, and impedence wasn't a problem. Picked up everything
> that goes to the
> headset. leave the squelch down to pickup engine sounds,
> wind noise, etc. (gets a
> little annoying, though). Do a short video and check it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
I expect the patch cables will only have to be BNC The ham should have more
patch cables than Lipton got tea bags. You can also check with the local
telco if they offered a VHF radio phone service. Be sure their technicians
have everything and more to do the job!
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 2:13 AM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
>
>
>
> Several of you have advised me that an a VSWR check should be
> my next step. (my radios bench checked good, receivers are
> excellent, but my transmissions are weak and scratchy)
>
> I contacted a gentleman who has a 'ham' business in town. He
> deals pretty much with the shortwave spectrum, not the VHF.
> He told me that he doesn't have the MFJ-259B meter. But, he
> feels sure that I can find someone in a local club who does.
> He mentioned that the meter needs to be inserted into the
> feed line between the radio and the antenna and he suspects
> adapters might be required to do that. Before I start trying
> to find someone with a MFJ-295B, what should I know about
> inserting the meter into the feed line? Remember, I am Radio
> Illiterate. I just want to be sure that I can provide the
> 'ham' with the required adapters and any other information
> that he might need. It is possible that will have no
> experience with aircraft radios.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Linman
> To locate a local ham, look for a house with an "antenna
> farm"! Many hams
> these days have the MFJ-259B which is a very good tool for
> checking VSWR
> across the VHF band. This is a very easy test to do. One
> only needs to plug the
> coax from the antenna into the unit and turn a knob.
>
>
> Dan Hopper K9WEK
> Walton, IN
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <joplin1(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
In answer to your question "If the tests show the transmitters and antennas are
ok as far as power and VSWR is concerned then you will have to look at the audio
input circuits. I can't quite remember, but didn't you say you had been trying
to incorporate a mobile phone into the system?? Or was that somone else??"
My LightSPEED headset does have the capability to connect to a cell phone. I experimented
with it and found that my calls out were too weak and broken for others
to understand. My cell phone receiver was excellent though. I have acknowledge
that cell phone use in the air is illegal so please no more responses
to that.
I no longer have a cell phone connected to the system. My question: Is it possible
that my experiment with the cell phone damaged the system? The radios bench
check good.
I do have a Sigtronics Intercom system with stereo music capability. It can take
music from a portable disk player and pipes it through the intercom. I seldom
use it, but perhaps that circuit is faulty.
Thanks,
John
----- Original Message -----
From: John Rippengal
To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 2:54 AM
Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
Connecting a VSWRmeter in the feed line involves:
unplugging the antenna from the radio;
plugging the input to the meter into the output of the radio which will
require a short lead with the appropriate plug (probably a BNC plug) on it
to suit the radio output;
plugging the antenna coax into the output of the VSWR meter (you will
probably need a UHF to BNC adapter for that assuming the antenna lead has a
BNC plug on it.)
Radio hams will be familiar with this nomenclature.
It is a simple operation and you would be well advised to get a VSWR meter
yourself for future reference once you have seen how it is done.
If the tests show the transmitters and antennas are ok as far as power and
VSWR is concerned then you will have to look at the audio input circuits. I
can't quite remember, but didn't you say you had been trying to incorporate
a mobile phone into the system?? Or was that somone else??
John
>
> Several of you have advised me that an a VSWR check should be my next
> step. (my radios bench checked good, receivers are excellent, but my
> transmissions are weak and scratchy)
>
> I contacted a gentleman who has a 'ham' business in town. He deals pretty
> much with the shortwave spectrum, not the VHF. He told me that he doesn't
> have the MFJ-259B meter. But, he feels sure that I can find someone in a
> local club who does. He mentioned that the meter needs to be inserted
> into the feed line between the radio and the antenna and he suspects
> adapters might be required to do that. Before I start trying to find
> someone with a MFJ-295B, what should I know about inserting the meter into
> the feed line? Remember, I am Radio Illiterate. I just want to be sure
> that I can provide the 'ham' with the required adapters and any other
> information that he might need. It is possible that will have no
> experience with aircraft radios.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Linman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Hopperdhh(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
John,
The MFJ-259B needs an SO-239 to BNC adapter and then perhaps male-to-male or
female-to-female BNC connectors to allow it to connect to your antenna
somehow. I have found that you can sometimes take a BNC and butcher it up to
connect directly into the radio tray (after removing the radio) to test the whole
feedline plus antenna.
The 259B does not use the radio for the signal source to measure VSWR, it
has its own signal generator and counter, so it does not go inline like a
standard SWR meter. (VSWR and SWR are used interchangeably here. Also the SWR
meter is sometimes called an SWR bridge -- same thing.) The 259B only tests
the antenna and coax beyond where you connect it in. I think you have already
tested the radio, so this way you can isolate the problem.
Dan Hopper K9WEK
RV-7A
In a message dated 6/22/2006 12:47:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
joplin1(at)charter.net writes:
I contacted a gentleman who has a 'ham' business in town. He deals pretty
much with the shortwave spectrum, not the VHF. He told me that he doesn't
have the MFJ-259B meter. But, he feels sure that I can find someone in a
local club who does. He mentioned that the meter needs to be inserted into the
feed line between the radio and the antenna and he suspects adapters might be
required to do that. Before I start trying to find someone with a MFJ-295B,
what should I know about inserting the meter into the feed line? Remember, I
am Radio Illiterate. I just want to be sure that I can provide the 'ham' with
the required adapters and any other information that he might need. It is
possible that will have no experience with aircraft radios.
Thanks,
John Linman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
No intention of giving any lectures on legality John. It's just that I am
puzzled by both receiver paths being ok which tends to suggest the
antenna/feeders may also be ok. If both transmitters are giving poor results
then the common thing is the audio source and if you have been 'playing'
with it there may have been some damage done inadvertently.
J
>
> In answer to your question "If the tests show the transmitters and
> antennas are ok as far as power and VSWR is concerned then you will have
> to look at the audio input circuits. I can't quite remember, but didn't
> you say you had been trying to incorporate a mobile phone into the
> system?? Or was that somone else??"
>
> My LightSPEED headset does have the capability to connect to a cell phone.
> I experimented with it and found that my calls out were too weak and
> broken for others to understand. My cell phone receiver was excellent
> though. I have acknowledge that cell phone use in the air is illegal so
> please no more responses to that.
>
> I no longer have a cell phone connected to the system. My question: Is
> it possible that my experiment with the cell phone damaged the system?
> The radios bench check good.
>
> I do have a Sigtronics Intercom system with stereo music capability. It
> can take music from a portable disk player and pipes it through the
> intercom. I seldom use it, but perhaps that circuit is faulty.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
>No intention of giving any lectures on legality John. It's just that I am puzzled
by both receiver paths being ok which tends to suggest the antenna/feeders
may also be ok. If both transmitters are giving poor results then the common
thing is the audio source and if you have been 'playing' with it there may have
been some damage done inadvertently.
>J
Agreed. A good thing to look for is always some single thing that can affect both
devices giving trouble.
In this case it's the incoming audio or possibly the aircraft power. It is unlikely
that both antenna systems have failed simultaneously. Well they are on the
belly. Were the wheels down?
The radio shop that did the bench testing. Did they use the microphone out of the
aircraft? Did they say anything about modulation level? For many radios it's
supposed to be adjusted for the microphone to be used though it's not terribly
important with newer radios.
Are there different microphone jacks in the aircraft? Have they all been tried?
Is there another microphone?
Can you be sure you're not transmitting on both radios at the same time? Did you
turn one completely off. If both radios are tuned to the same frequency you
can expect noise from the receiver associated with the transmitter not in use.
Its input at the antenna will surely drive it into saturation. You should be
sure that's not being switched into your audio system.
Get rid of all audio stuff by using a "standard" carbon microphone. If you have
jacks that bypass the audio selector panel use them. If not consider installing
some. Two radios with only one way to get to them doesn't support the extra
reliability of having two.. Some microphones have been known to be sensitive
to radiation from a transmitter. An unshielded wire on a headset can easily do
that especially if the mic is not real carbon but one of the newer electrets
or dynamic devices that require a transistor for operation.
With the antennas on the belly that VSWR test being discussed may be compromised
especially if the ground below is electrically conductive - grass or wet. It
won't be there while flying.
Are you sure you don't have aircraft power problems? The radios draw more current
while transmitting and might be causing a drop in line voltage. Measure it.
Check for changes in transmitted quality with the engine revved up. Check with
the landing light and pitot heat on to make for more drain on the bus.
--
--> The best programming tool is a soldering iron <--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
Find some one with a beastie called a Bird Wattmeter. Read the forward
power and then reverse the slug to read the reflected power. This will
check the power amp of your transmitter at the same time as checking your
antenna system.
While you are at it ask if any one has a Cushman station analyzer. This
will do much much more. Any one who has this equipment will know how to use
it. If your radios are certified they may not want to go near them. Not
because of lack of knowledge but because of legal implications.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:23 PM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John,
>
> The MFJ-259B needs an SO-239 to BNC adapter and then perhaps
> male-to-male or
> female-to-female BNC connectors to allow it to connect to
> your antenna
> somehow. I have found that you can sometimes take a BNC and
> butcher it up to
> connect directly into the radio tray (after removing the
> radio) to test the whole
> feedline plus antenna.
>
> The 259B does not use the radio for the signal source to
> measure VSWR, it
> has its own signal generator and counter, so it does not go
> inline like a
> standard SWR meter. (VSWR and SWR are used interchangeably
> here. Also the SWR
> meter is sometimes called an SWR bridge -- same thing.) The
> 259B only tests
> the antenna and coax beyond where you connect it in. I
> think you have already
> tested the radio, so this way you can isolate the problem.
>
> Dan Hopper K9WEK
> RV-7A
>
>
> In a message dated 6/22/2006 12:47:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> joplin1(at)charter.net writes:
>
> I contacted a gentleman who has a 'ham' business in town.
> He deals pretty
> much with the shortwave spectrum, not the VHF. He told me
> that he doesn't
> have the MFJ-259B meter. But, he feels sure that I can
> find someone in a
> local club who does. He mentioned that the meter needs to
> be inserted into the
> feed line between the radio and the antenna and he suspects
> adapters might be
> required to do that. Before I start trying to find someone
> with a MFJ-295B,
> what should I know about inserting the meter into the feed
> line? Remember, I
> am Radio Illiterate. I just want to be sure that I can
> provide the 'ham' with
> the required adapters and any other information that he
> might need. It is
> possible that will have no experience with aircraft radios.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Linman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <joplin1(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
I am starting to get bogged down with technical stuff that I don't understand.
I think my best solution now is to spend the $$ and take my aircraft to an Avionics
Shop. I have printed out all of your comments and suggestions. They should
be very helpful when I discuss my transmitter problems with avionics technicians.
I will stay after them until they have considered all of the possibilities
that you have mentioned.
Actually, my radios are still useable ... just not as good as I'd like. I will
refrain from asking for radio checks in the future because I know the answer
will be "weak and scratchy". Instead, I will just press on as if I don't have
a problem. I have found that all of the controlling agencies I deal with read
me well enough so that they don't complain.
Thanks again to all of you.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: Noel Loveys
To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:32 PM
Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
Find some one with a beastie called a Bird Wattmeter. Read the forward
power and then reverse the slug to read the reflected power. This will
check the power amp of your transmitter at the same time as checking your
antenna system.
While you are at it ask if any one has a Cushman station analyzer. This
will do much much more. Any one who has this equipment will know how to use
it. If your radios are certified they may not want to go near them. Not
because of lack of knowledge but because of legal implications.
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
> Of Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:23 PM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
>
>
>
>
>
>
> John,
>
> The MFJ-259B needs an SO-239 to BNC adapter and then perhaps
> male-to-male or
> female-to-female BNC connectors to allow it to connect to
> your antenna
> somehow. I have found that you can sometimes take a BNC and
> butcher it up to
> connect directly into the radio tray (after removing the
> radio) to test the whole
> feedline plus antenna.
>
> The 259B does not use the radio for the signal source to
> measure VSWR, it
> has its own signal generator and counter, so it does not go
> inline like a
> standard SWR meter. (VSWR and SWR are used interchangeably
> here. Also the SWR
> meter is sometimes called an SWR bridge -- same thing.) The
> 259B only tests
> the antenna and coax beyond where you connect it in. I
> think you have already
> tested the radio, so this way you can isolate the problem.
>
> Dan Hopper K9WEK
> RV-7A
>
>
> In a message dated 6/22/2006 12:47:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> joplin1(at)charter.net writes:
>
> I contacted a gentleman who has a 'ham' business in town.
> He deals pretty
> much with the shortwave spectrum, not the VHF. He told me
> that he doesn't
> have the MFJ-259B meter. But, he feels sure that I can
> find someone in a
> local club who does. He mentioned that the meter needs to
> be inserted into the
> feed line between the radio and the antenna and he suspects
> adapters might be
> required to do that. Before I start trying to find someone
> with a MFJ-295B,
> what should I know about inserting the meter into the feed
> line? Remember, I
> am Radio Illiterate. I just want to be sure that I can
> provide the 'ham' with
> the required adapters and any other information that he
> might need. It is
> possible that will have no experience with aircraft radios.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John Linman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca> |
| Subject: | Dual Comm Transmitter Problem |
One last question .... What does the audio of the side tone sound like??
Noel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:42 PM
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
>
>
>
> I am starting to get bogged down with technical stuff that I
> don't understand. I think my best solution now is to spend
> the $$ and take my aircraft to an Avionics Shop. I have
> printed out all of your comments and suggestions. They
> should be very helpful when I discuss my transmitter problems
> with avionics technicians. I will stay after them until they
> have considered all of the possibilities that you have mentioned.
>
> Actually, my radios are still useable ... just not as good as
> I'd like. I will refrain from asking for radio checks in the
> future because I know the answer will be "weak and scratchy".
> Instead, I will just press on as if I don't have a problem.
> I have found that all of the controlling agencies I deal with
> read me well enough so that they don't complain.
>
> Thanks again to all of you.
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Noel Loveys
> To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 5:32 PM
> Subject: RE: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
>
>
>
>
> Find some one with a beastie called a Bird Wattmeter. Read
> the forward
> power and then reverse the slug to read the reflected
> power. This will
> check the power amp of your transmitter at the same time as
> checking your
> antenna system.
>
> While you are at it ask if any one has a Cushman station
> analyzer. This
> will do much much more. Any one who has this equipment
> will know how to use
> it. If your radios are certified they may not want to go
> near them. Not
> because of lack of knowledge but because of legal implications.
>
> Noel
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf
> > Of Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
> > Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 1:23 PM
> > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Dual Comm Transmitter Problem
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > The MFJ-259B needs an SO-239 to BNC adapter and then perhaps
> > male-to-male or
> > female-to-female BNC connectors to allow it to connect to
> > your antenna
> > somehow. I have found that you can sometimes take a BNC and
> > butcher it up to
> > connect directly into the radio tray (after removing the
> > radio) to test the whole
> > feedline plus antenna.
> >
> > The 259B does not use the radio for the signal source to
> > measure VSWR, it
> > has its own signal generator and counter, so it does not go
> > inline like a
> > standard SWR meter. (VSWR and SWR are used interchangeably
> > here. Also the SWR
> > meter is sometimes called an SWR bridge -- same thing.) The
> > 259B only tests
> > the antenna and coax beyond where you connect it in. I
> > think you have already
> > tested the radio, so this way you can isolate the problem.
> >
> > Dan Hopper K9WEK
> > RV-7A
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 6/22/2006 12:47:29 A.M. Eastern
> Daylight Time,
> > joplin1(at)charter.net writes:
> >
> > I contacted a gentleman who has a 'ham' business in town.
> > He deals pretty
> > much with the shortwave spectrum, not the VHF. He told me
> > that he doesn't
> > have the MFJ-259B meter. But, he feels sure that I can
> > find someone in a
> > local club who does. He mentioned that the meter needs to
> > be inserted into the
> > feed line between the radio and the antenna and he suspects
> > adapters might be
> > required to do that. Before I start trying to find someone
> > with a MFJ-295B,
> > what should I know about inserting the meter into the feed
> > line? Remember, I
> > am Radio Illiterate. I just want to be sure that I can
> > provide the 'ham' with
> > the required adapters and any other information that he
> > might need. It is
> > possible that will have no experience with aircraft radios.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > John Linman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FLYaDIVE(at)aol.com |
Does anyone know what the amperage rating of a KX 125 is?
Is there a web site that may have this information and other avionics data?
Thank you
Barry
"Chop'd Liver"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Avionics-List Digest: 1 Msgs - 06/25/06 |
Hi Barry,
The KX125 is a great radio and accurate VOR. Had one in my Stinson. The max
current it should draw in receive with speakers and lighting is about 1.25
amps (15watts/12v), with lighting and transmit .9 amps. I'm not positive (since
I sold the Stinson about 5 years ago) but I believe we used a 5 amp fuse to
protect the wiring. I believe the radio was internally fused for each Nav and
Comm.
Hope this helps,
..Jon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt> |
| Subject: | Transponder and radio to sell |
Hi guys
I am a Portuguese homebuilder who is building an RV-9A.
Some time ago I bought a NARCO AT 155 transponder, but didn't install yet.
Since in Europe it's going to be mandatory next year to have a mode S
transponder, I'll have to buy something like a Garmin 330. Therefore, I am
willing to sell the Narco AT 155. Although it is brand new, never installed
or used, I am accepting less than I payed for it ($1.149).
I also bought an ICOM A-200 TSO'd comm radio, which I'm also willing to
sell, because I'm thinking in buying a GARMIN SL-40 (or an SL-30 if Santa is
generous with me). The ICOM radio is also still in the box, and I also
accept less than it's new price ($849).
Those interested please contact me offlist.
I will go to Oshkosh this year, I can deliver both there.
Carlos
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | VM1000 light system failure |
Fellow listers,
Anyone out there experience a failure mode with their VM1000 internal
lighting system? The lights worked up until a few days ago...I'm trying to
remember if I have done anything to the lighting system that might cause the
failure mode sooooo........
Here's the troubleshooting that I have already done:
Pin 20 has 13.3 VDC
Pin 21 has between 4.1 VDC and 10.8 VDC depending on the dimmer setting
Pin 22 has continuity to ground
These three are 'as designed' in my opinion - so the proper stuff is at
least getting to the DPU.
Is there something that I can check on the cable between the DPU and the
display?
I've sent a note to Vision Microsystems - I'll post their response.........
Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | VM1000 light system failure |
Responding to an Avionics-List message previously posted by: "Ralph E.
Capen"
7/17/2006
Hello Ralph, I went through a struggle with my VM 1000 instrument lighting.
I have VM instruments in addition to the main display. I won't bore you with
all the details but here are some of the essential elements.
1) The instrument lights require alternating current that is generated by a
small inverter inside the DPU. VM says to determine if this inverter is
running or not by listening for the hum. This never worked for me.
2) You can do a check on the electrical output of the inverter to the
lights. Disconnect the ribbon cable connector farthest from the DPU and
probe the last two sockets on the ribbon cable (opposite the Red striped
pin). You should have at least 89V AC (rms) across them with the unit
operating and the lights turned on.
3) Do this check very carefully. Use a couple pieces of the the smallest
size safety wire (0.020 diameter) to probe the sockets on the ribbon cable
so that you don't destroy the sockets. Probe only those two sockets which
are ground and the AC supply. If you happen to send the AC supply back to
the DPU on one of the other sockets you can damage the DPU. Don't ask how I
know this.
4) If it turns out that you are not getting the desired AC voltage across
these two sockets then you probably have one of three problems. Either the
inverter is not working, or the AC supply wire is broken, or the AC supply
wire is grounded out somewhere along the ribbon cable.
5) Before you pack up your DPU and send it off to VM for inverter repair you
can check out the ribbon cable. Remove the cable completely from the
aircraft and probe the sockets in the end connectors for the ground wire,
the AC supply wire, and the wire next to the AC supply wire separately to
ensure continuity and no cross connection. If all three wires check out OK
you probably have a failed inverter.
6) If the ribbon cable checks out bad you can get a replacement cable from
VM or you can buy the parts and make up a cable yourself. (Contact me for
parts identification.) In either case you will be required to fasten the
connectors onto the ribbon cable. Be careful about how you orient those
connectors so that they align properly with your DPU and instruments.
7) After ribbon cable assembly I would check out every single socket on
every connector for continuity and no cross talk before installing in
airplane.
8) VM, and particularly David McCluskey, are great people to do business
with. Please keep us informed on your progress.
OC
>
> Fellow listers,
>
> Anyone out there experience a failure mode with their VM1000 internal
> lighting system? The lights worked up until a few days ago...I'm trying
> to
> remember if I have done anything to the lighting system that might cause
> the
> failure mode sooooo........
>
> Here's the troubleshooting that I have already done:
>
> Pin 20 has 13.3 VDC
> Pin 21 has between 4.1 VDC and 10.8 VDC depending on the dimmer setting
> Pin 22 has continuity to ground
>
> These three are 'as designed' in my opinion - so the proper stuff is at
> least getting to the DPU.
> Is there something that I can check on the cable between the DPU and the
> display?
>
> I've sent a note to Vision Microsystems - I'll post their
> response.........
>
> Ralph Capen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: VM1000 light system failure |
7/17/2006
Hello Ralph, Obtaining the right replacement ribbon cable and the proper
connecters was a little tricky because parts from the supplier to VM were
not available. Went out of business or was bought out. I did some research
and came up with equivalent parts from Mouser.
1) The 26 wire IDC (Insulation Displacement Connector) flat ribbon cable
made by 3M that could be bought by the foot was Mouser part number
517-3365/26FT. It was $1.65 per foot.
http://www.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=3365%2f26-CUT-LENGTHvirtualkey51750000
2) The socket type connectors were Mouser part number 571-7462856. They were
$1.18 each.
http://www.mouser.com/search/refine.aspx?Ntt=571-7462856
3) If you buy a replacement display cable from VM (cost $54) the connector
that goes onto the DPU is already installed and the wire folds back over
itself and that fold is held in place for strain relief by a little plastic
clip that slides onto the connectors in 2 above. That strain relief is
Mouser part number 571-499252-3. Costs about $0.20 each.
http://www.mouser.com/search/ProductDetail.aspx?R=499252-3virtualkey57100000
Please keep us informed of your progress.
OC
PS: My problem started when one of the connectors on the original display
cable from VM had a hidden slight bend in one of the insulation displacement
prongs. When I squashed that connector into place on the cable at the proper
location for one of my VM instruments the prong went slightly sideways and
cross connected the AC supply wire for the lights and the ground wire.
Finding that problem and correcting it was difficult and expensive. (Could
have been even more expensive if not for the gracious help of VM). That is
why I recommend that after assembly every wire on every socket of that IDC
cable be checked on the bench for continuity and no cross connection before
the cable is installed in the airplane.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 1:16 PM
> OC,
>
> I'll take the part numbers for the ribbon cable and connectors , please.
>
> I'm guessing that they can be procured through digi-key/mouser/etc.
>
> Thanks,
> Ralph
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Matronics Email List Web Server Upgrade Tonight... |
Dear Listers,
This evening I will be upgrading the Matronics Web Server hardware to a new Quad-processor
2.8Ghz Xeon system (yes, 4-physical CPUs!) with an Ultra 320 SCSI
Raid 5 disk system and 5GB of DDR2 RAM.
As with the older system, the new system will be running the latest version of
Redhat Linux. Most of the software configuration work is already done for the
migration, but I still have to sync all of the archive and forum data from the
old system to the new system. I am anticipating about 2 to 3 hours of downtime
for me to fully make the transition, although it could be considerable less
if everything goes according to plan.
The Matronics Webserver will be *UNavailable* from the Internet during the work,
and you will receive a time-out if you try to connect during the upgrade.
Email List Distribution will be *available* during the upgrade of the Web Server,
and List message distribution will function as normal.
This represents a significant performance upgrade for the Matronics Web Server
and you should notice nicely improved searching and surfing performance following
the upgrade!
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New Incoming Message Size Limit Implemented... |
Dear Listers,
Due to a number of requests to limit the size of incoming posts to the Lists because
of the recently added enclosure feature, I have add a new filter that will
limit the total size of any given message posted to the List. I have initially
set the limit to 2MB
and we'll see how everyone likes that.
If a member attempts to post a message that is greater than the set limit, they
will receive an email back indicating that their message wasn't posted to the
List and why. Also included in the message will be the current size limit and
how large their message
was.
Some might say that 2MB is still too large, but its a place to start...
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
Responding to a posting from Skip Simpson:
8/10/2006
Hello Skip, The issue on the use of non TSO'd altitude encoders is currently
under review (again) at FAA headquarters. I have been involved in this issue
for some time, but have refrained from posting any information on this
unresolved issue because of the potentially huge adverse impact upon our
amateur built community. I wanted to avoid much controversial and
distracting communications pending the, hopefully favorable, eventual ruling
by FAA on this subject. Here in a fairly brief summary form is the
situation:
1) FAR 91.217 Reads as follows: "Data correspondence between automatically
reported pressure altitude data and the pilot's altitude reference.
No person may operate any automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment
associated with a radar beacon transponder-
(a) When deactivation of that equipment is directed by ATC;
(b) Unless, as installed, that equipment was tested and calibrated to
transmit altitude data corresponding within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) of the indicated or calibrated datum of the altimeter
normally used to maintain flight altitude, with that altimeter referenced to
29.92 inches of mercury for altitudes from sea level to the maximum
operating altitude of the aircraft; or
(c) Unless the altimeters and digitizers in that equipment meet the
standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively."
2) It would appear that any aircraft, standard type certificated or
experimentally certificated, whether flying IFR or VFR, and replying with a
mode C transponder altitude read out to ATC, either must comply with 91.217
(b) or be using a TSO-C88 approved altitude encoder.
3) Some companies providing altitude encoders to the amateur built
experimental aircraft community, some of which are incorporated into EFIS,
have been providing non TSO'd altitude encoders. It is not always made clear
by the manufacturing companies whether the altitude encoders within their
EFIS are TSO'd or not.
4) Some of these non TSO'd altitude encoders have better performance than
the TSO calls for both in terms of altitude granularity output and in output
format (serial instead of gray code).
5) There are many of these non TSO'd encoders in aircraft that are currently
flying and many in aircraft under construction.
6) A general presumption in the community was made (at least by those that
thought about it) that if an altimeter - altitude encoder - transponder
installation passed the FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F tests which are
required by FAR 91.411 and 91.413 every two years, that FAR 91.217 (b) was
being complied with.
7) A ruling from FAA headquarters in response to a letter from me said "not
so" to such compliance interpretation in the following fashion:
"Your letter posed the following questions:
1. If an amateur built experimental aircraft has an installed TSO'd ATC
transponder as required by Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
section 91.215, but a non-TSO'd altitude encoder and the installation has
passed the test and inspection requirements of 14 CFR sections 91.411 and
91.413 within the preceding 24 calendar months, does the installation meet
the requirements of 14 CFR section 91.217(b), and therefore make that
installation acceptable for IFR operations?
2. If the answer to question one is No, can you please tell me
why?
The answer to question one is "No." The testing required to show the
transmitted altitude data corresponds within 125 feet (on a 95 percent
probability basis) is more rigorous than the requirements referenced in 14
CFR sections 91.411, 91.413, and 14 CFR, part 43 appendices E and F. The
tests required by 14 CFR part 43 appendix E(c) measure the automatic
pressure altitude at a sufficient number of test points to ensure the
altitude reporting equipment performs its intended function.
Title 14 CFR section 91.217 paragraphs (b) and (c), state that pressure
altitude reporting equipment must be tested and calibrated to transmit
altitude data correspondence within stated specifications; or, the
altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards in TSO-C10B and TSO-C88,
respectively.
Should the owner/operator elect to exhibit compliance with tests and
calibration provided in 14 CFR section 91.217(b), a test method would need
to be developed that
ensures the transmitted data corresponds within 125 feet of the indicated
altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft
on a 95 percent probability basis. This testing also needs to ensure the
performance characteristics of the equipment are not impacted when
subjected to environmental conditions (voltage fluctuations temperature,
vibration, etc.) which may be encountered in airborne operations.
Completed tests and calibration results should be maintained in the
aircraft records.
Thank you for your interest in aviation safety."
8) You can see the tremendous impact that enforcement of such a position
would have on the companies making and selling non TSO'd encoders or EFIS
containing non TSO'd encoders, the airplanes under construction planning to
incorporate those EFIS, and all of those airplanes currently flying with non
TSO'd altitude encoders.
9) I did not accept the FAA's position in 7) above as the final word and am
working through a cooperating local FAA FSDO employee to both educate FAA
headquarters and to get them to adopt a more reasonable position on the use
of non TSO'd altitude encoders.
10) I would encouage our community to not react in an adverse manner to the
FAA's current position and to continue to work the issue on a cooperative
basis. I will post additional information as it becomes available and
attempt to answer any questions that you may have.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: encoder approval
Is the Rocky Mountain encoder approved for certificated aircraft, the
factory says that "it conforms to c88a", is that enough, or is there more
needed.
Any opinions on the unit. Thanks, Skip Simpson>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/11/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin
Horton.
Hello Kevin, Time spent in attempting to correct an injustice or an
absurdity by governments is never wasted. It is a peculiarity of human
nature that once people are placed in a position of authority or officialdom
that a percentage of them will abuse that position either out of ignorance
or arrogance. Left unchallenged, that abuse never diminishes on its own, but
instead tends to grow.
The current situation is that every day companies are manufacturing and
selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO calls for, some
builder are buying those encoders or have bought them in the past, avionics
shops are approving those non TSO'd encoders in accordance with the tests
called for in FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds?
thousands?) are flying around with those encoders responding with an
altitude readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with.
And FAA headquarters currently says: "No, that can't be because it is in
violation of FAR 91.217 (b) as we interpret it."
I don't know how this situation would eventually resolve itself if we just
ignored it, but I don't feel that a head-in-the-sand approach is the best
way to go.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<
Good luck. I think you are wasting your time, albeit for a good
cause. Granted, you might manage to find some FSDO that doesn't
understand that 95% probability does in fact mean over the full range
of expected conditions (speaking from experience working with the
aircraft cert FARs for many years). But, once Washington finds out
the FSDO has approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring
testing over the full range of conditions, they will probably release
a policy letter that stops you in your tracks.
I'm not saying that things should be like this, but this is the way
they are, like it or not. The only way out, in my opinion, is a
change to 91.217, but reg changes typically take 10 years or more.
Kevin Horton>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | encoder approval |
8/11/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brett
Ferrell
Hello Brett, Thanks for your input.
In fact it was the EAA web site wording that caused me to take action on
this issue.
My reaction was: How can the EAA, which is supposed to be our amateur built
proponent, ignore the current situation which is that every day companies
are manufacturing and
selling more non TSO'd encoders that are better than the TSO calls for, some
builder are buying those encoders or have bought them in the past, avionics
shops are approving those non TSO'd encoders in accordance with the tests
called for in FAR Part 43 Appendix E and F, and many airplanes (hundreds?
thousands?) are flying around with those encoders responding with an
altitude readout that ATC is entirely satisfied with?
When I corresponded with EAA on this issue their response was: "We stand by
our position."
I could not accept this head-in-the-sand approach and wrote to the FAA.
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
<
Have you enlisted the help of EAA on this matter? I would think that thier
involvement would be helpful. They've already weighed in on this matter, in
the other direction, supposedly with FAA input!!.....skip.....>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <bakerocb(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | altitude encoders |
8/12/2006
Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton
Hello Kevin, Thanks for your input.
You wrote: "....skip......But, once Washington finds out the FSDO has
approved something under 91.217(b) without requiring testing over the full
range of conditions, they will probably release
a policy letter that stops you in your tracks.....skip........"
For the most part neither FAA headquarters nor FSDO's are aware of the
situation. For years hundreds of non TSO'd altitude encoders with technology
and performance superior to that called for in the TSO have been built,
sold, installed, flying, tested satisfactorily every two years in accordance
with FAR Part 43, and flying some more.
I am not at risk of being stopped, I have a TSO'd altitude encoder in my
flying amateur built experimental airplane, but I may want to build another
plane with an EFIS and I want the EFIS developers and builders and the FAA
to have reached a rational arrangement by that time.
And I don't want that rational arrangement to include the FAA stifling the
tremendous progress that has been made by EFIS developers by throwing a
prohibitive bureaucratic blanket on the developers. Nor do I want all the
airplanes presently flying with non TSO'd altitude encoders to be grounded.
I think the solution lies in a more rational interpretation of the intent of
FAR 91.217 (b).
OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge.
November 26, 2005 - August 12, 2006
Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-ak