Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-al

August 12, 2006 - February 18, 2007



      
      <
      
      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
Date: Aug 12, 2006
8/12/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton Hello Again Kevin, Continuing our dialogue on our current favorite subject: 1) You wrote: "Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over the full range of conditions under which it will operate? Yes. 2) You wrote: " How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will operate correctly at temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity, voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc? I would base my confidence in a proven non TSO'd altitude encoder on two things: A) The superior newer technology used in manufacturing the encoder. B) The actual past performance of that encoder over years of use in the field. 3) You wrote: "If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the full range of conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there." I worked for years in the airborne weapons testing field and I assure you that there is no such thing as ground or laboratory testing "under the full range of conditions". Actual satisfactory performance in the field after a significant period time in use is the best indication of the suitability of a piece of equipment for its intended use. 4) You wrote: "If he has done the testing, and it does operate properly over the full range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO for it? Two words -- time and money. When a small business sets out to create, manufacture, and sell a better mouse trap that it has developed it can only operate for so long on the capital available before some income has to arrive in order to sustain the business. If that capital is totally dissipated in un needed tests and bureaucratic paper generation before sufficient income arrives the company dies and the better mouse trap with it. 5) You wrote: "The fact that air traffic control has not detected a problem with someone's encoder says very little." You are right. But we are not talking about just someone's encoder. We are talking about hundreds of encoders that have been performing satisfactorily in flight for years and have satisfactorily passed the FAR Part 43 Appendices E and F tests many times every two years. 6) You wrote: "If there is a problem, it might not show up until another aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries to avoid your aircraft, yet hits it because the encode was in error. Is this acceptable?" No. But I say again, the technology used and the performance of the proven non TSO'd encoders is superior to that called for in the TSO. No piece of equipment can guarantee perfect peformance throughout its entire service life, but the better technology encoder is less likely to have a problem show up. 7) You wrote: "If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would you word it to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective?" My preferred first step in the process to resolve the present situation is an interpretation from FAA headquarters that automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment that is installed in amateur built experimental aircraft and tested in accordance with the appropriate provisions of FAR 91.411, 91.413, and appropriate Appendices to FAR Part 43 are considered to be in compliance with FAR 91.217 (b). I'll let the experts and lawyers work on a permanent rational solution. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. < Hi Owen, Do you agree that there are important safety-related reasons to require that the altitude encoder report the correct altitude, over the full range of conditions under which it will operate? How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder will operate correctly at temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity, voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc? If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under the full range of conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there. If he has done the testing, and it does operate properly over the full range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a TSO for it? The fact that air traffic control has not detected a problem with someone's encoder says very little. If there is a problem, it might not show up until another aircraft, responding to a TCAS alert tries to avoid your aircraft, yet hits it because the encode was in error. Is this acceptable? Note: recent regulatory changes will require more and more aircraft to get TCAS-like systems, so it will become even more important that all encoders be telling the truth. If you could write your own wording for 91.217, how would you word it to make it cheaper to comply, yet still achieve the safely objective? Kevin Horton>> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: encoder approval
Date: Aug 12, 2006
8/12/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by "Brian Meyette" Hello Brian, 1) You wrote: "What was the input you were responding to?' I assume that you were addressing this question to me. The input that I was responding to was a posting by Brett Ferrell. 2) You wrote: "What position is EAA referring to?" Brett included the EAA position on TSO'd encoders in his posting. He copied it off EAA's web site. I objected to the EAA position (as I described) and when they brushed me off I wrote to the FAA. I'll extract a bit of the EAA's position and copy it below: "The requirements for altitude reporting equipment associated with the transponder are called out in 91.217(c), which states that, the altimeters and digitizers must meet the standards of TSO-C10b and TSO-C88, respectively. TSO-C10b applies to the sensitive altimeter itself, and TSO-C88 applies to the automatic altitude reporting equipment. Again the equipment is required to meet the standards of the applicable TSO's, but not necessarily be produced under a TSO authorization. But as with the transponder, the easiest way for a builder to meet this requirement is to install equipment manufactured under a TSO authorization. Remember that, in order to legally operate this equipment under IFR, you must also comply with the maintenance and testing requirements of parts 91.411 (for altimeter and altitude reporting equipment), and 91.413 (for the transponder). Note that the requirements of 91.413 apply even if the aircraft is operated only under VFR." My objections were: A) The EAA position completely ignored the existence of FAR 91.217 (b). B) The EAA position completely ignored the existence of hundreds of amateur built experimental aircraft currently flying satisfactorily with non TSO'd transponders. C) The EAA position completely ignored the existence of EFIS incorporating non TSO'd transponders. D) I did not feel that the EAA position was proactive enough in support of their members interests. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. PS: I greatly enjoyed looking at your web site. I shall return. < What was the input you were responding to? What position is EAA referring to? I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA was saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder. Details beginning here: http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31>> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: encoder approval
Date: Aug 13, 2006
8/12/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Kevin Horton. Hello Kevin, 1) You wrote: "So, once an encoder had a significant period of satisfactory in- service use, it would be legal to use that encoder in service. This might work for currently existing encoders, if we accept that there is a reasonable probability that an in-service problem would be detected. But how would this approach help for a new encoder?" A) Altitude encoder fundamentals are well understood and the technology is not that exotic. B) All encoders, including the newly designed non TSO'd encoder, must receive the appropriate tests called for in the appropriate provisions of FAR 91.411, 91.413, and appropriate Appendices to FAR Part 43 before being used in flight and then every 24 calendar months during use. C) If the newly designed non TSO'd encoder passed the above listed tests and was installed in an amateur built experimental aircraft it would be considered in compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) and legal for in flight use. D) If the newly designed non TSO'd encoder proved to be deficient in service after passing the above listed tests pilots, ATC, and the market place would very quickly have it out of service. E) Please read FAR 91.217 (b) carefully -- note the use of the words "as installed". We are not talking shake, bake, rattle, and roll tests in this paragraph. Then read FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F carefully. Now tell me that the testing intent of 91.217 (b) is not met by the tests described in Appendicies E and F. 2) You wrote: "Surely the manufacturer must do a reasonable amount of testing before they determine that the encoder actually works correctly." Agreed. No rational person who expects to remain in business produces a functioning product and puts it out in the market place for customers to do all the testing. 3) You wrote: "I wonder why they can't document that testing and use it as part of a TSO submission. Maybe the answer is to improve the TSO process. Review the TSO, pull out any unneeded tests, reduce the bureaucratic paperwork, and streamline the review process. As it is, my recollection is that the FAA has 30 days from the time a TSO package is submitted to accept it. That isn't bad (if my memory hasn't failed me)." I can't answer your question from first hand experience, but I'd like to make two comments: A) There have been two companies in our arena that I am aware of that have been through the TSO process for their products in recent years: Vision Microsystems (Lance Turk) and JP Instruments (Joe P..). Maybe they can shed some light on the rationallity of the process. B) There are some very smart and very experienced people in our arena (I have in mind the Tru Trak people right now) who have produced some very successful products for the amateur built experimental aircraft community. Don't you think that they would like to have their products in every type certificated Cirrus, Diamond, and Columbia airplane that is produced? But so far the TruTrak people have not created any TSO'd products. Do you suppose it is because they don't want to get wrapped around the axle of some no value added TSO approval process? OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. < > AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by > Kevin Horton > > 2) You wrote: " How can you be assured that a non-TSO'd encoder > will operate correctly at > temperature extremes, or when subjected to vibration, humidity, > voltage variations, electromagnetic interference, etc? > > I would base my confidence in a proven non TSO'd altitude encoder > on two things: > > A) The superior newer technology used in manufacturing the encoder. > > B) The actual past performance of that encoder over years of use in > the field. > > 3) You wrote: "If the manufacturer hasn't tested his encoder under > the full range of > conditions, then he has no idea how well it will work there." > > I worked for years in the airborne weapons testing field and I > assure you that there is no such thing as ground or laboratory > testing "under the full range of conditions". Actual satisfactory > performance in the field after a significant period time in use is > the best indication of the suitability of a piece of equipment for > its intended use. So, once an encoder had a significant period of satisfactory in- service use, it would be legal to use that encoder in service. This might work for currently existing encoders, if we accept that there is a reasonable probability that an in-service problem would be detected. But how would this approach help for a new encoder? > > 4) You wrote: "If he has done the testing, and it does operate > properly over the full > range of conditions, why would the manufacturer not want to get a > TSO for it? > > Two words -- time and money. When a small business sets out to > create, manufacture, and sell a better mouse trap that it has > developed it can only operate for so long on the capital available > before some income has to arrive in order to sustain the business. > If that capital is totally dissipated in un needed tests and > bureaucratic paper generation before sufficient income arrives the > company dies and the better mouse trap with it. Surely the manufacturer must do a reasonable amount of testing before they determine that the encoder actually works correctly. I wonder why they can't document that testing and use it as part of a TSO submission. Maybe the answer is to improve the TSO process. Review the TSO, pull out any unneeded tests, reduce the bureaucratic paperwork, and streamline the review process. As it is, my recollection is that the FAA has 30 days from the time a TSO package is submitted to accept it. That isn't bad (if my memory hasn't failed me). Kevin Horton >> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: encoder approval
Date: Aug 14, 2006
8/14/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: cfi(at)conwaycorp.net Hello Michael H. Thanks for your input. 1) You wrote: "In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not be hasty about accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but not necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have unlimited resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles carefully." I agree. Maybe my choice of the word "proactive" was not the best. What I really expected of EAA was for them to acknowledge that a (potential) problem existed for their members and that the existence and proper interpretation of FAR 91.217 (b) could solve that problem. 2) You wrote: "This would give the Airline Pilots Association and other opponents to the AOPA/EAA ammunition to show that we are not capable of following the rules as published and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their eyes) and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards." I believe that complying with FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F places an encoder / transponder installation in compliance with the intent of FAR 91.217 (b). Please read those items carefully for yourself and tell us why you would think differently. 3) You wrote: "I believe the EAA is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since it is the current rule." The EAA did not even acknowledge the existence of 91.217 (b) on their website or in communicating with me. They took the position that only 91.217 (c) -- TSO'd encoders are required -- was relevant. 4) You wrote: "It would be foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to publicly support breaking any FAR." I agree. The issue is not breaking an FAR. The issue is a rational interpretation of the intent of FAR 91.217 (b) which calls for tests of the installation. It does not call for the elaborate, but undefined tests that HQ FAA described in response to my letter. 5) You wrote: "Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under the radar so to speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it." I agree. Hundreds of non TSO'd encoders in amateur built experimental aircraft have been performing satisfactorily both in the tests required by FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F and in flight under ATC control or radar contact for many years. This indicates to me that the elaborate tests that HQ FAA says are required to comply with FAR 91.217 (b) are not needed. 6) You wrote: "Im also not aware of anybody who has had enforcement action taken against them for using a nonTSOd encoder. If you have, please let us hear about the facts of the case." Please see the posting by "Brian Meyette" which reads in part: "I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA was saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder." I again thank you for your interest and welcome your support on this issue. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. <> <<http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31>> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: encoder approval
Date: Aug 14, 2006
8/14/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd Hello Brian, Thanks for your input. You wrote in part: "But you can use any encoder you want to. It doesn't have to be TSO'd. You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy yourself." I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR 91.217 is relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as called for in 91.217 (c) then the installation must pass the tests required by FAR 91.217 (b). Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has described a testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that is unreasonable. See their response to my letter in a previous posting. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: encoder approval
Date: Aug 14, 2006
8/14/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd. Hello Brian, Thank you for your inputs on this subject. A bit of clarification if I may: 1) You wrote: " If your transponder really breaks, pull it out of the panel, carry it into the radio shop, have it fixed, and put it back in your panel. Your repairman's certificate means you get to do that." Actually the only thing that an individual's repairman's certificate for a specific amateur built experimental aircraft permits that individual to do is to perform and sign off the condition inspection that is required for that aircraft during the previous 12 calendar months. It does not permit him to repair, work on, or maintain that aircraft because no such permission is required for anyone, I repeat ANYONE, to repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft. So anyone, doesn't have to be the the holder of the repairman's certificate (aircraft builder), can do what you suggest above. 2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*" As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it has not received wide spread use. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. PS: A)It should be noted that there are FAR's that require that certain aircraft maintenance records be maintained. ABEA are not excused from those requirements. B) It should also be noted that, if the work on an ABEA is determined to be a major modification, regardless of who does it, the Operating Limitations for that specific aircraft should be consulted to determine the proper procedures to be followed. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Hinchcliff" <cfi(at)conwaycorp.net>
Subject: Re: encoder approval
Date: Aug 14, 2006
OC, thanks for your objective response to my message. I appreciate healthy debate in that it improves my understanding of the issues, in this case FAR 91.217. I now see what you are saying. Everything else aside, 91.217 (c) does not say the equipment must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO standards. My question to the non-TSO'd encoder community is this: How do you prove your equipment meets the required TSO standards? TSO certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is. Part (b) just references how the equipment is to be tested and does not necessarily prove compliance with the required TSO. My simpleton answer would be to either A.) formally prove the non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide the paperwork that goes with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by purchasing equipment that's already certified as meeting the standard and start flying. Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp. Have you barked up that tree yet? Michael H. ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Cc: ; Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 1:55 PM Subject: encoder approval > 8/14/2006 > > Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: > cfi(at)conwaycorp.net > > Hello Michael H. Thanks for your input. > > 1) You wrote: "In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not > be hasty about > accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but > not > necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have > unlimited > resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles > carefully." > > I agree. Maybe my choice of the word "proactive" was not the best. What I > really expected of EAA was for them to acknowledge that a (potential) > problem existed for their members and that the existence and proper > interpretation of FAR 91.217 (b) could solve that problem. > > 2) You wrote: "This would give the Airline Pilots Association and other > opponents to the AOPA/EAA ammunition to show that we are not capable of > following the rules as published > and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their > eyes) > and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards." > > I believe that complying with FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F places an > encoder / transponder installation in compliance with the intent of FAR > 91.217 (b). Please read those items carefully for yourself and tell us why > you would think differently. > > 3) You wrote: "I believe the EAA is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since > it is the current rule." > > The EAA did not even acknowledge the existence of 91.217 (b) on their > website or in communicating with me. They took the position that only > 91.217 (c) -- TSO'd encoders are required -- was relevant. > > 4) You wrote: "It would be foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to > publicly support breaking any FAR." > > I agree. The issue is not breaking an FAR. The issue is a rational > interpretation of the intent of FAR 91.217 (b) which calls for tests of > the installation. It does not call for the elaborate, but undefined tests > that HQ FAA described in response to my letter. > > 5) You wrote: "Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under > the radar so to > speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it." > > I agree. Hundreds of non TSO'd encoders in amateur built experimental > aircraft have been performing satisfactorily both in the tests required by > FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F and in flight under ATC control or radar > contact for many years. This indicates to me that the elaborate tests that > HQ FAA says are required to comply with FAR 91.217 (b) are not needed. > > 6) You wrote: "Im also not aware of anybody who has had enforcement action > taken against them for using a nonTSOd encoder. If you have, please > let us hear about the facts of the case." > > Please see the posting by "Brian Meyette" > which reads in part: > > "I went thru huge hassles over the encoder question. At that time, EAA > was > saying my encoder did not have to be TSOd. BMA & GRT said their built-in > encoders were fine for IFR. But my avionics shop would not install or > calibrate anything but TSOd. Local FSDO agreed. I hassled over it for > months & ended up buying the Sandia TSO encoder." > > I again thank you for your interest and welcome your support on this > issue. > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > > < > In regard to our concerns about encoder approvals, lets not be hasty about > accusing the EAA of burying their head in the sand on this important, but > not > necessary urgent issue. We must remember that the EAA does not have > unlimited > resources, therefore, they (like everyone else) must chose their battles > carefully. To put this issue in the spotlight would be very BAD TIMING in > light of the user fee threat that has been looming for at 10 years now. > This > would give the Airline Pilots Association and other opponents to the > AOPA/EAA > ammunition to show that we are not capable of following the rules as > published > and therefore create a hazard to transportation safety (at least in their > eyes) > and should be subjected to the fees to minimize the hazards. I believe > the EAA > is correct by standing by 91.217(b) since it is the current rule. It > would be > foolish and counter-productive for the EAA to publicly support breaking > any FAR. > Excuse the pun, but I believe the encoder issue is under the radar so to > speak since our ATC friends are not complaining about it. Im also not > aware > of anybody who has had enforcement action taken against them for using a > non > TSOd encoder. If you have, please let us hear about the facts of the > case. Michael H.>> > > <<http://brian76.mystarband.net/avionicsAug04.htm#aug31>> > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: encoder approval
Date: Aug 15, 2006
8/14/2006 Responding to an email and posting by Michael Hinchcliff Hello Michael, Thanks for your response and your kind words. I am not happy dabbling in the arena of semantics and legalese, but it appears that the regulations and the FAA's interpretation of the regulations force us in that direction. 1) You wrote: "Everything else aside, 91.217 (c) does not say the equipment must be TSO certified, but meet the TSO standards." Correct. 2) You wrote: "TSO certification is not in the reg, but MEETING it is." Meeting all of the TSO standards for an altitude encoder is not mandatory or required. In my opinion there are three ways to have legal automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment in an aircraft: A) Go through the process of obtaining FAA TSO compliant approval for the manufacturing process, testing, performance, and all related documentation of your equipment. You will then be authorized to mark the equipment as meeting the requirements of TSO-C88a. By virtue of this marking your equipment is presumed to meet the requirement of 91.217 9(c) for equipment that meets the minimum performance standards in TSO-C88a. B) Design, build, and test your equipment. Then request a deviation from the TSO standards from the FAA in accordance with FAR 21.609. See the TSO to read what those standards are: http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/7F3CE81AFC742A4B86256DC70067B087?OpenDocument More recent editions of TSO's include an FAA policy statement like this that head you in the deviation direction: "Deviations. We have provisions for using alternate or equivalent means of compliance to the criteria in the MPS of this TSO. If you invoke these provisions, show that your equipment maintains an equivalent level of safety. Apply for a deviation under 14 CFR 21.609." MPS means Minimum Performance Standards. Note that there is a lot more to a TSO than just the minimum performance standards. FAR 21.609 reads as follows: "Approval for deviation. (a) Each manufacturer who requests approval to deviate from any performance standard of a TSO shall show that the standards from which a deviation is requested are compensated for by factors or design features providing an equivalent level of safety. (b) The request for approval to deviate, together with all pertinent data, must be submitted to the Manager of the Aircraft Certification Office for the geographic area in which the manufacturer is located. If the article is manufactured in another country, the request for approval to deviate, together with all pertinent data, must be submitted through the civil aviation authority in that country to the FAA." C) Design, build, test, and sell equipment that you are confident meets the testing requirements of 91.217 (b) when installed in an aircraft. What are the intended testing requirements of 91.217 (b)? That is the issue at hand. I think that meeting the appropriate testing requirements of FAR Part 43 Appendicies E and F fulfills the intent of 91.217 (b). HQ FAA currently says not so. I hope to change that position. Complicating the situation is the existence of hundreds of non TSO'd encoders already in satisfactory use for years and more being manufactured, sold to, and installed by amateur builders in their aircraft. 3) You wrote: "Part (b) just references how the equipment is to be tested and does not necessarily prove compliance with the required TSO." Agreed -- see paragraph 2 C above. 4) You wrote: "My simpleton answer would be to either A.) formally prove the non TSO'd equipment meets the standard and provide the paperwork that goes with it, OR B.) save a lot of time and money by purchasing equipment that's already certified as meeting the standard and start flying. Two questions: aa) If such a policy as A.) above had been in effect for the last 10 years what would be the current status of EFIS development in our community? bb) How does B.) above deal with all the non TSO'd equipment already installed and flying, being installed, and being manufactured? 5) You wrote: "Perhaps another remedy would be to see if manufacturer of the non TSO'd equipment has the necessary paperwork/evidence that proves the equipment meets the standard without having the coveted TSO $tamp." See 2) B) above. You wrote: " Have you barked up that tree yet?" No. To date I am only pursuing a more rational interpretation of FAR 91.217 (b) by HQ FAA. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. <> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: encoder approval
Date: Aug 15, 2006
8/15/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Doug Windhorn" Hello Doug, 1) You wrote: "Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper equipment and knew how to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane." The ONLY privileges that a Repairman's Certificate for a specific amateur built experimental aircraft grants are for the holder of that certificate to perform and sign off the condition inspection for that aircraft that is required every 12 calendar months. 2) If you really want to squeeze through a transponder testing loophole yourself take a look at FAR 91.413(c) (3). I don't recommend it. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. < Kevin, Thought of that after Brian's reply and reading the FAR 43 App F. Although, as a "Repairman", AND if one had the proper equipment and knew how to use it, I presume one could sign off a test on their own airplane. Doug>> ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Ferrer" <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: encoder approval
Date: Aug 15, 2006
>From the EAA Website: Q. Can a builder with a repairman certificate for the aircraft he built perform his own altimeter or transponder certifications? A. No. Although the FAR's do authorize the "manufacturer" of the aircraft to conduct the tests, the builder of an amateur-built aircraft does not meet the FAA's definition of a manufacturer. The FAA, in Order 8130.2, defines a manufacturer as a Production Approval Holder (PAH). Some examples of a PAH would be the holder of a Production Certificate (PC), a Parts Manufacturing Authority (PMA), and Technical Standards Order Authorization (TSOA). According to the FAA, an amateur builder does not fit this definition and, therefore cannot perform the transponder and pitot/static tests on his/her homebuilt. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: encoder approval
Date: Aug 15, 2006
8/15/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by Brian Lloyd Hello Brian, 1) You wrote: "ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out." Please do not tear your hair out or rend your garments on my behalf. Life is too short for that. controversial and distracting communications pending the, hopefully favorable, eventual ruling by FAA on this subject." desist trying to confuse this issue, I am going to come over there and beat your hands into a bloody pulp with a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-)" Sigh 3) You wrote: "YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY. Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads:.....skip..... Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude (mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is indicated on your altimeter. The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it is working." It is more than a bit ironic that you and I are complete agreement on this point. The problem lies in the fact that HQ FAA (and the EAA) currently do not agree with you and me. Also neither did the avionics shop and FSDO that Brian Meyette was dealing with (see his posting). Is there trouble brewing in River City? 4) You wrote: "OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are insisting on muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were." You will recall that this thread was started by Skip Simpson who posted: "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" I think that it would have been rude of me, and counter to the precepts of this list, to ignore his request for information / help. I think that it would have been unfair of me to give him just my opinion alone when I knew the issue was unresolved. So I responded with the facts as they existed at that time. Subsequently I have responded to all questions that were posed directly to me as factually as possible. It would have been rude of me if I had ignored those postings. If I have left anyone's water muddied or anyone's cake pissed upon I apologize. 5) You wrote: "This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA. You get some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you." I asked FAA HQ for clarification of 91.217 (b) because of a doubtful encoder situation that arose between a local builder who installed an EFIS, his FAA inspector, another individual at the local FSDO, and the manufacturer of the EFIS. I would have preferred to have not gotten a response from "some boob who hasn't got a clue" on my first try, but I wasn't offered that option. So I am trying again. 6) You wrote: "The key point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs no interpretation." Again, I agree, and if this is indeed the case then sooner or later we will find some rational person at FAA HQ who agrees with your statement and the issue will be resolved properly. In the meantime I hope that we can deal with facts and not emotion, adamant statements of our opinions, or name calling that might turn out to be counter productive. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge < On Aug 14, 2006, at 3:19 PM, wrote: > --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: > > 8/14/2006 > > Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by > Brian Lloyd > > Hello Brian, Thanks for your input. > > You wrote in part: "But you can use any encoder you want to. It > doesn't have to be TSO'd. > You are responsible for the airworthiness of your aircraft. Satisfy > yourself." > > I am in concurrence with the thrust of your statements, but FAR > 91.217 is relevant. If your encoder / transponder is not TSO'd as > called for in 91.217 (c) then the installation must pass the tests > required by FAR 91.217 (b). ARRGGGH! You are making me want to tear my hair out. OK, I am going to say this just one more time as you are insisting on muddying the waters, pissing on the wedding cake, as it were. YOU MAY USE ANY ENCODER YOU WANT TO USE. WIRE IT UP TO YOUR TRANSPONDER. DRAG YOUR AIRPLANE OVER TO GET A TRANSPONDER CERTIFICATION AND THEN GO FLY. Why do I say this? Because of FAR 91.217(b) which reads: (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; Hello! This is the transponder certification test! This is the test performed by the radio shop on your airplane! They feed absolute pressure into your static system and check the transponder altitude (mode-C) output at several pressure altitudes. The mode-C output of your transponder must track your altimeter to within 125' of what is indicated on your altimeter. The key point is that you have TESTED your installation to ensure it is working. > Unfortunately at the present time (until corrected) FAA HQ has > described a testing process for compliance with FAR 91.217 (b) that > is unreasonable. See their response to my letter in a previous > posting. This is what happens when people ask questions of the FAA. You get some boob who hasn't got a clue to interpret things for you. The key point is that FAR 91.217(b) is very clear and needs no interpretation. The transponder certification test is where you test and calibrate your encoder to transmit altitude data corresponding within 125' of the indicated or calibrated data of the altimeter normally used to maintain flight attitude, with that altimeter referenced to 29.92"Hg for altitudes from sea level to the maximum operating altitude of the aircraft. Notice just how similar my words are to 91.217(b)? Now, if you don't cease and desist trying to confuse this issue, I am going to come over there and beat your hands into a bloody pulp with a hard-bound copy of the FARs so you can't type any more. :-) (BTW, if you use the same pressure sensor to generate your altitude readout AND drive your transponder, the altitude sent by the transponder absolutely MUST be the same indicated since they are both the same data.) Brian Lloyd>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2006
From: John Grosse <grosseair(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: encoder approval
Wow! You guys are getting way too intense about this whole thing! Lighten up and fly. By now we should all realize that you can do any thing you want until it causes a problem. Then you'll find out that if you did the wrong thing you're violated, and your insurance may no longer cover you. But, hey, I've known of guys who flew for more than 20 years without a license or insurance. So just shut up and fly. John Grosse ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: OBAM vs. ABEA
Date: Aug 15, 2006
8/15/2006 Responding to an AeroElectric-List message previously posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" Hello Bob, I appear to aroused and aggravated two of our most senior gurus on this list (you and Brian) at the same time -- I feel like I have hit the quinella. You wrote: "Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind "OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur" while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption. I fully appreciate, understand, and accept your motivation for eschewing the two dread words, "experimental" and "amateur", under certain circumstances. I have the following comments: A) When we call the same thing by two different names or two different things by the same name sooner or later we sow confusion. B) Many people, even in our community, do not know that OBAM stands for Owner Built And Maintained. Maybe a spell out of the acronym the first time it is used in a document would help. B) People who see the term OBAM over and over begin to think that it is indeed only the Owner or only the Builder who may Maintain the aircraft. This is misleading and needs to be clarified every once in a while, in fact just recently on this list. C) Use of the term OBAM causes people tend to think that every aircraft in our community must have been Built by the current Owner. But ownership by individuals subsequent to the builder is very common in our community. There are some significant issues involved with subsequent ownership. D) When we are attempting to clarify some regulatory point among ourselves and start to use terms like "registration", "certification", "airworthiness", "special", "standard", "category", "Operating Limitations", and "instrument and equipment requirements", it is helpful if we all use the same terms to mean the same thing and that these are the terms also found in the regulations. These are just some of the reasons that I use the term ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) from time to time when communicating within the community. The next time that I am in a courtroom I'll fuzzy it up a bit. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. << AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" > >2) You wrote: "OBAM means "owner *built* and *MAINTAINED*" > >As you can see the term OBAM is a bit of a misnomer because, as described >above, any one can repair, work on, or maintain an amateur built >experimental aircraft. I think the acronym ABEA (Amateur Built >Experimental Aircraft) is both more inclusive and more accurate, but it >has not received wide spread use. Bureaucratic nomenclature not withstanding, the idea behind "OBAM" was to eliminate the terms "experimental" and "amateur" while substituting equally accurate words for public consumption. The average Joe on the street thinks getting into any little airplane is foolhardy. Pasting an "experimental" label on the "amateur" built machine only serves to elevate the listener/reader's level of tension/apprehension. Back when I gave depositions in accident investigations and analysis we took pains to avoid words like "impact", "crash", "shattered", etc in favor of equally accurate but less exciting words like "contact", "event", "failed", etc. When attempting to explain the finer details of an accident where 90% of the energy is expended in the first few hundred milliseconds of an event, it's challenging but useful to downplay the violence while focusing on the science. It's easier to keep the listener's attention to facts and logic if you avoid the kind of words one hears in abundance on the 6 o-clock news. It worked well in the courtroom and many of our aviation-ignorant fellow citizens are considered ideal jury material. Further, in many venues the owner of a TC aircraft has accomplished some pretty heavy maintenance and repairs albeit under the watchful eye of a "certified" individual who ultimately accepts responsibility for the work. Bob . . .>> ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: "Bob Gibfried" <rfg842(at)cox.net>
Subject: Connector
Can anyone suggest a source for a female 37 pin connector for a KMD 150 o n the inter net? After three weeks of promises, my avionics shop is too busy to make a pigtail with just power and ground. The on line sites I've loojked at, i t's difficult to dertermine the correct connector. Would probably also need a crimper. Thanks Bob, Wichita ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Subject: Re: Connector
From: Gerry Holland <gnholland(at)onetel.com>
> Bob Hi! > > Can anyone suggest a source for a female 37 pin connector for a KMD 150 o n the > inter net? > > Try: http://www.northerntech.com/ntc_dc.htm > > I have a KMD150 and these look familiar. As I remember when wiring I didn =B9t > use a Crimp Tool as difficult to find and I carefully solder the very few > connections I needed to make. > > Regards > > Gerry > Europa XS Trigear > G-FIZY > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Ferrer" <mike@ferrer-aviation.com>
Subject: Re: Connector
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Bob, You can buy the connector from www.mouser.com. It's a DSub connector and you can get them in either solder or crimp style. Or, if you prefer, I have the crimp style connector in stock and can add the power/ground pigtails tonight and send it out tomorrow. Send me an email at mike@ferrer-aviation.com if I can help. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Bob Gibfried To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:38 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Connector Can anyone suggest a source for a female 37 pin connector for a KMD 150 on the inter net? After three weeks of promises, my avionics shop is too busy to make a pigtail with just power and ground. The on line sites I've loojked at, it's difficult to dertermine the correct connector. Would probably also need a crimper. Thanks Bob, Wichita ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 06, 2006
From: "Ralph E. Capen" <recapen(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: VM1000 vs VM1000C
Anyone out there using Vision Microsystems VM1000C? I'm trying to determine if this is a worthwhile alternative to the VM1000. Also, anyone heard about how VMS relationship with JPI will proceed? ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: CDI necessary with Garmin SL30?
From: "Chris In Madison" <cowens(at)cnw.com>
Date: Sep 08, 2006
Hello all, Other than it being a larger, more easily read "analog" display, is a CDI a necessity with Garmin's SL30? I see that it has a CDI-like indicator in its display, although I'm guessing (without looking at the manual) that this display doesn't handle glide slope, only VOR and the like. What would I be missing out on if I chose not to connect a CDI? Best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60380#60380 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 08, 2006
From: Richard Dudley <rhdudley1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: CDI necessary with Garmin SL30?
Hi Chris, I think of several things you will miss without a CDI on your SL30. You mentioned the glide slope. The display does not include the glide slope. Though the OBS can be set on the SL30 for the desired VOR radial, it requires a combination of a button pres and more than one knob turn so is less convenient than a single knob on a CDI. With a CDI, you can use a L-R output to couple to an autopilot to follow the needle of the CDI. If you are ever going to want an instrument rating and use it, the CDI will fit into your scan and be more readible than the SL30 display. I'm not even sure that the display qualifies for IFR use. Hope this is some help. The old timers will probably also respond with comments. Regards, Richard Dudley -6A with SL30 and CDI Chris In Madison wrote: > >Hello all, > >Other than it being a larger, more easily read "analog" display, is a CDI a necessity with Garmin's SL30? I see that it has a CDI-like indicator in its display, although I'm guessing (without looking at the manual) that this display doesn't handle glide slope, only VOR and the like. > >What would I be missing out on if I chose not to connect a CDI? > >Best regards, >Chris > >-------- >Chris Owens >Waunakee, WI > > >Read this topic online here: > >http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60380#60380 > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: CDI necessary with Garmin SL30?
From: "Chris In Madison" <cowens(at)cnw.com>
Date: Sep 08, 2006
Thanks for your thoughts, Richard. I can see where it's quite useful now. I've been considering an EFIS with CDI components in the software, but I'm debating whether or not I should have an actual CDI as a backup. I think you've answered that question for me. Thanks again and best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60397#60397 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options
From: "Chris In Madison" <cowens(at)cnw.com>
Date: Sep 08, 2006
Hello all, I've been following Tim Olson's RV-10 project for a while and he uses a GNS-480 in his panel in addition to the built-in GPS of the Pinpoint GADHRS. From what I read, the 480 pretty much sits dormant in the background while the built-in GPS does most of the work. Presumably, the 480 is there because it's the only IFR-certified GPS of the Garmin line (and in his plane). Presuming someone was to use the FreeFlight GPS option to meet the IFR requirements, would one be losing any functionality that the 480 offers? I've gone through a majority of the feature/operation videos on the Chelton site, and the system is really thorough in its navigation options, flight planning, etc. Would a pilot miss not having a 480 in the panel by relying on the Chelton, or are they similarly capable? I do see the benefit of having the 480 as a GPS backup in case of EFIS/FreeFlight failure, to be sure, but thought I'd pose the question. I suppose there's always the tried-and-true radio navigation as well :-) Thanks and best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60403#60403 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "6440 Auto Parts" <sales(at)6440autoparts.com>
Subject: Re: CDI necessary with Garmin SL30?
Date: Sep 08, 2006
I purchased a new md200-306 for my SL30/Grand Rapids system which I have decided not to use since I will be installing a 3 screen system with dual ahrs. If anyone is interested in purchasing it I will sell it for what I paid which was around $1450. Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris In Madison" <cowens(at)cnw.com> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 12:55 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: CDI necessary with Garmin SL30? > > Thanks for your thoughts, Richard. I can see where it's quite useful now. > > I've been considering an EFIS with CDI components in the software, but I'm > debating whether or not I should have an actual CDI as a backup. I think > you've answered that question for me. > > Thanks again and best regards, > Chris > > -------- > Chris Owens > Waunakee, WI > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60397#60397 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Richardson" <jrichard(at)ccser.com>
Subject: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options
Date: Sep 08, 2006
Chris >From what I've learned building my Lancair Legacy and going around with Direct to Avionics (Chelton rep to experimental) the Chelton system does not interface with the Garmin 480....only the SL-30/SL-40 via serial bus. Most panels I see at Lancair that are using the Chelton system rely on the FreeFlight GPS and flight planning is done in the Chelton user interface. A 480 or 430 is back-up only. Seems like a bit of a waste. The Chelton can not even display nav data (like localizer / glide slope or VOR) from the 480. I love the 480 and have decided to go with Grand Rapids interfacing to the 480 and SL-30. Flight planning will be done on the 480 and the Grand Rapids unit will display the whole flight path with the current leg colored magenta. HSI will show both Nav 1 and Nav2 in different colors. And with Chelton, I also miss the "pan". On the 480, you can scroll ahead of your current location to look at airspace ahead or on either side of your flight path and get data on "nearest" waypoints to the pan location. The Chelton screen is beautiful with very high resolution and good sunlight visibility. It's nice to have all these choices. Regards John Richardson Spokane WA -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris In Madison Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:13 AM Subject: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Hello all, I've been following Tim Olson's RV-10 project for a while and he uses a GNS-480 in his panel in addition to the built-in GPS of the Pinpoint GADHRS. >From what I read, the 480 pretty much sits dormant in the background while the built-in GPS does most of the work. Presumably, the 480 is there because it's the only IFR-certified GPS of the Garmin line (and in his plane). Presuming someone was to use the FreeFlight GPS option to meet the IFR requirements, would one be losing any functionality that the 480 offers? I've gone through a majority of the feature/operation videos on the Chelton site, and the system is really thorough in its navigation options, flight planning, etc. Would a pilot miss not having a 480 in the panel by relying on the Chelton, or are they similarly capable? I do see the benefit of having the 480 as a GPS backup in case of EFIS/FreeFlight failure, to be sure, but thought I'd pose the question. I suppose there's always the tried-and-true radio navigation as well :-) Thanks and best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60403#60403 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options
Date: Sep 09, 2006
Chris, Just to clear up something John wrote that is incorrect about the statement " The Chelton can not even display nav data (like localizer / glide slope or VOR) from the480." This statement is incorrect. The 480 has the same output provided on the SL-30/SL-40 located on page D-23 if the installation manual. The 480 was the UPS CNX-80 designed by UPS the same folks that created the SL30/40. So in short you can display and control navigation function for ILS/LOC/VOR on the Chelton through a serial data bus. Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Richardson Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:21 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Chris >From what I've learned building my Lancair Legacy and going around with Direct to Avionics (Chelton rep to experimental) the Chelton system does not interface with the Garmin 480....only the SL-30/SL-40 via serial bus. Most panels I see at Lancair that are using the Chelton system rely on the FreeFlight GPS and flight planning is done in the Chelton user interface. A 480 or 430 is back-up only. Seems like a bit of a waste. The Chelton can not even display nav data (like localizer / glide slope or VOR) from the 480. I love the 480 and have decided to go with Grand Rapids interfacing to the 480 and SL-30. Flight planning will be done on the 480 and the Grand Rapids unit will display the whole flight path with the current leg colored magenta. HSI will show both Nav 1 and Nav2 in different colors. And with Chelton, I also miss the "pan". On the 480, you can scroll ahead of your current location to look at airspace ahead or on either side of your flight path and get data on "nearest" waypoints to the pan location. The Chelton screen is beautiful with very high resolution and good sunlight visibility. It's nice to have all these choices. Regards John Richardson Spokane WA -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris In Madison Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:13 AM Subject: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Hello all, I've been following Tim Olson's RV-10 project for a while and he uses a GNS-480 in his panel in addition to the built-in GPS of the Pinpoint GADHRS. >From what I read, the 480 pretty much sits dormant in the background while the built-in GPS does most of the work. Presumably, the 480 is there because it's the only IFR-certified GPS of the Garmin line (and in his plane). Presuming someone was to use the FreeFlight GPS option to meet the IFR requirements, would one be losing any functionality that the 480 offers? I've gone through a majority of the feature/operation videos on the Chelton site, and the system is really thorough in its navigation options, flight planning, etc. Would a pilot miss not having a 480 in the panel by relying on the Chelton, or are they similarly capable? I do see the benefit of having the 480 as a GPS backup in case of EFIS/FreeFlight failure, to be sure, but thought I'd pose the question. I suppose there's always the tried-and-true radio navigation as well :-) Thanks and best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60403#60403 -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options
Date: Sep 09, 2006
Chris, Here is a note from Chelton and Direct from the latest news letter about using the GPS as a standalone system. The FreeFlight receiver coupled with your Chelton EFIS allows for LNAV/VNAV GPS WAAS approaches and IFR/G designation, allowing for stand-alone IFR navigation. When the 1101 is present, the Chelton software provides the integrity monitoring necessary for TSO-C145/146. The FreeFlight 1101 and Chelton EFIS-SV work together, providing the same functional requirements as the certified Chelton FlightLogic EFIS. Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris In Madison Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:13 AM Subject: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Hello all, I've been following Tim Olson's RV-10 project for a while and he uses a GNS-480 in his panel in addition to the built-in GPS of the Pinpoint GADHRS. From what I read, the 480 pretty much sits dormant in the background while the built-in GPS does most of the work. Presumably, the 480 is there because it's the only IFR-certified GPS of the Garmin line (and in his plane). Presuming someone was to use the FreeFlight GPS option to meet the IFR requirements, would one be losing any functionality that the 480 offers? I've gone through a majority of the feature/operation videos on the Chelton site, and the system is really thorough in its navigation options, flight planning, etc. Would a pilot miss not having a 480 in the panel by relying on the Chelton, or are they similarly capable? I do see the benefit of having the 480 as a GPS backup in case of EFIS/FreeFlight failure, to be sure, but thought I'd pose the question. I suppose there's always the tried-and-true radio navigation as well :-) Thanks and best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60403#60403 -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options
From: "Chris In Madison" <cowens(at)cnw.com>
Date: Sep 09, 2006
Many thanks for info Mike. I think a FreeFlight GPS and a couple of SL30s ought to be the perfect combination and take up a heck of a lot less space on the panel. Many thanks for your thoughts. Best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60621#60621 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Richardson" <jrichard(at)ccser.com>
Subject: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options
Date: Sep 11, 2006
One last go-around on the Chelton system interfacing with the Garmin 480. I spoke with Josh at Direct to Avionics. Josh works with Peter and Kirk to answer technical questions at Direct to avionics and they sell the Chelton "Sport" and Chelton "Pro" systems to the experimental aircraft market. Josh confirmed the Chelton "Sport" system does not interface with the Garmin 480, even though it has a serial bus like the SL-30. Complete SL-30 functionality is not available on the 480 serial bus (unfortunately). As an alternative, the Garmin 430 can partially interface with the Chelton "Sport" via an ARINC 429 converter. I'm not sure what functionality is missing when interfacing with a Garmin 430. The Chelton "Pro" system does interface completely with the Garmin 480. I've seen this system and it is very impressive. When connected to a 480 and SL-30, the "Pro" HSI shows two bearing pointers for Nav1 and Nav2 with switching to select between Nav1 or Nav2 for the CDI and OBS. The "Pro" system is about twice the price of the "Sport" system. I only saw one Pro system at Lancair avionics and it was going into a Lancair IV turbine aircraft. In my previous discussions regarding interfacing a Chelton system with the Garmin 480, I was referring to the Chelton "Sport" system which most experimental aircraft builders choose if they go for a Chelton system. I believe it's price is around $25K (two displays) and the "Pro" system is around $50K. Hope this level of detail helps. I appreciate everyone's feedback. Thanks John Richardson Lancair Legacy builder Spokane WA -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Chris, Just to clear up something John wrote that is incorrect about the statement " The Chelton can not even display nav data (like localizer / glide slope or VOR) from the480." This statement is incorrect. The 480 has the same output provided on the SL-30/SL-40 located on page D-23 if the installation manual. The 480 was the UPS CNX-80 designed by UPS the same folks that created the SL30/40. So in short you can display and control navigation function for ILS/LOC/VOR on the Chelton through a serial data bus. Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Richardson Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:21 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Chris >From what I've learned building my Lancair Legacy and going around with Direct to Avionics (Chelton rep to experimental) the Chelton system does not interface with the Garmin 480....only the SL-30/SL-40 via serial bus. Most panels I see at Lancair that are using the Chelton system rely on the FreeFlight GPS and flight planning is done in the Chelton user interface. A 480 or 430 is back-up only. Seems like a bit of a waste. The Chelton can not even display nav data (like localizer / glide slope or VOR) from the 480. I love the 480 and have decided to go with Grand Rapids interfacing to the 480 and SL-30. Flight planning will be done on the 480 and the Grand Rapids unit will display the whole flight path with the current leg colored magenta. HSI will show both Nav 1 and Nav2 in different colors. And with Chelton, I also miss the "pan". On the 480, you can scroll ahead of your current location to look at airspace ahead or on either side of your flight path and get data on "nearest" waypoints to the pan location. The Chelton screen is beautiful with very high resolution and good sunlight visibility. It's nice to have all these choices. Regards John Richardson Spokane WA -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris In Madison Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:13 AM Subject: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Hello all, I've been following Tim Olson's RV-10 project for a while and he uses a GNS-480 in his panel in addition to the built-in GPS of the Pinpoint GADHRS. >From what I read, the 480 pretty much sits dormant in the background while the built-in GPS does most of the work. Presumably, the 480 is there because it's the only IFR-certified GPS of the Garmin line (and in his plane). Presuming someone was to use the FreeFlight GPS option to meet the IFR requirements, would one be losing any functionality that the 480 offers? I've gone through a majority of the feature/operation videos on the Chelton site, and the system is really thorough in its navigation options, flight planning, etc. Would a pilot miss not having a 480 in the panel by relying on the Chelton, or are they similarly capable? I do see the benefit of having the 480 as a GPS backup in case of EFIS/FreeFlight failure, to be sure, but thought I'd pose the question. I suppose there's always the tried-and-true radio navigation as well :-) Thanks and best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60403#60403 -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike" <mlas(at)cox.net>
Subject: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options
Date: Sep 11, 2006
John, This is true for full function as listed in the Chelton Pro operator manual, but you still get basic function with the 480 such as auto tune and VOR/LOC/GS from ONE radio on the RS232 if selected. You will not get function like the pro on two radios independently. The 480 does put out on a 232 line the data for VOR/LOC/GS. I'm not sure if the 480 provides you with TIS data from the GTX-330. I just looked it up and the information in Appendix B of the Garmin 480 installation manual states the function I listed. To be clear, the Pro system can differentiate between multiple input and outputs for VOR and auto tuning, the sport can not. If you are only using ONE external radio for these functions, based on what I just read the Garmin 480 does support these ASCII Binary data lines like the SL30 and 40. My personal experience with the CNX-80 uses RS232 for this information with the MX-20 but I think that it uses a proprietary language when talking to the MX20. Mike -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Richardson Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 10:23 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options One last go-around on the Chelton system interfacing with the Garmin 480. I spoke with Josh at Direct to Avionics. Josh works with Peter and Kirk to answer technical questions at Direct to avionics and they sell the Chelton "Sport" and Chelton "Pro" systems to the experimental aircraft market. Josh confirmed the Chelton "Sport" system does not interface with the Garmin 480, even though it has a serial bus like the SL-30. Complete SL-30 functionality is not available on the 480 serial bus (unfortunately). As an alternative, the Garmin 430 can partially interface with the Chelton "Sport" via an ARINC 429 converter. I'm not sure what functionality is missing when interfacing with a Garmin 430. The Chelton "Pro" system does interface completely with the Garmin 480. I've seen this system and it is very impressive. When connected to a 480 and SL-30, the "Pro" HSI shows two bearing pointers for Nav1 and Nav2 with switching to select between Nav1 or Nav2 for the CDI and OBS. The "Pro" system is about twice the price of the "Sport" system. I only saw one Pro system at Lancair avionics and it was going into a Lancair IV turbine aircraft. In my previous discussions regarding interfacing a Chelton system with the Garmin 480, I was referring to the Chelton "Sport" system which most experimental aircraft builders choose if they go for a Chelton system. I believe it's price is around $25K (two displays) and the "Pro" system is around $50K. Hope this level of detail helps. I appreciate everyone's feedback. Thanks John Richardson Lancair Legacy builder Spokane WA -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike Sent: Saturday, September 09, 2006 9:37 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Chris, Just to clear up something John wrote that is incorrect about the statement " The Chelton can not even display nav data (like localizer / glide slope or VOR) from the480." This statement is incorrect. The 480 has the same output provided on the SL-30/SL-40 located on page D-23 if the installation manual. The 480 was the UPS CNX-80 designed by UPS the same folks that created the SL30/40. So in short you can display and control navigation function for ILS/LOC/VOR on the Chelton through a serial data bus. Mike Larkin -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John Richardson Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 8:21 PM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Chris >From what I've learned building my Lancair Legacy and going around with Direct to Avionics (Chelton rep to experimental) the Chelton system does not interface with the Garmin 480....only the SL-30/SL-40 via serial bus. Most panels I see at Lancair that are using the Chelton system rely on the FreeFlight GPS and flight planning is done in the Chelton user interface. A 480 or 430 is back-up only. Seems like a bit of a waste. The Chelton can not even display nav data (like localizer / glide slope or VOR) from the 480. I love the 480 and have decided to go with Grand Rapids interfacing to the 480 and SL-30. Flight planning will be done on the 480 and the Grand Rapids unit will display the whole flight path with the current leg colored magenta. HSI will show both Nav 1 and Nav2 in different colors. And with Chelton, I also miss the "pan". On the 480, you can scroll ahead of your current location to look at airspace ahead or on either side of your flight path and get data on "nearest" waypoints to the pan location. The Chelton screen is beautiful with very high resolution and good sunlight visibility. It's nice to have all these choices. Regards John Richardson Spokane WA -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chris In Madison Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 11:13 AM Subject: Avionics-List: FAO Chelton users: outboard GPS options Hello all, I've been following Tim Olson's RV-10 project for a while and he uses a GNS-480 in his panel in addition to the built-in GPS of the Pinpoint GADHRS. >From what I read, the 480 pretty much sits dormant in the background while the built-in GPS does most of the work. Presumably, the 480 is there because it's the only IFR-certified GPS of the Garmin line (and in his plane). Presuming someone was to use the FreeFlight GPS option to meet the IFR requirements, would one be losing any functionality that the 480 offers? I've gone through a majority of the feature/operation videos on the Chelton site, and the system is really thorough in its navigation options, flight planning, etc. Would a pilot miss not having a 480 in the panel by relying on the Chelton, or are they similarly capable? I do see the benefit of having the 480 as a GPS backup in case of EFIS/FreeFlight failure, to be sure, but thought I'd pose the question. I suppose there's always the tried-and-true radio navigation as well :-) Thanks and best regards, Chris -------- Chris Owens Waunakee, WI Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=60403#60403 -- -- -- -- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Milbar Pliers Repair
Date: Sep 16, 2006
9/16/2006 Hello Fellow Builders, I have a 6" Milbar Tiger Wave reversible safety wire pliers that has quit working long before I think it should have been worn out. Is any one aware of a repair service for this pliers? Thanks. OC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 2006
Subject: Re: Milbar Pliers Repair
From: <rparigor(at)suffolk.lib.ny.us>
Hello OC "I have a 6" Milbar Tiger Wave reversible safety wire pliers that has quit working long before I think it should have been worn out. Is any one aware of a repair service for this pliers?" How about you?? I lent my Tiger Wave reversible safety wire pliers to a C-182RG owner and it was returned after using it on .041" not worknig. It was not designed robust enough for .041. I was able to take the cap off the knob (think perhaps gray or green plastic??), use some percussion maintenance to flatten the baby carriage wheel style holdemon star fasteners, reinstall the star, and reinstall the cap. Hope this helps. Ron Parigoris ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: G meter
From: "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net>
Date: Sep 18, 2006
Does anyone have the install manual for the EZE Instruments G Spot G meter model number GS95-A? The company no longer has this manual. Dennis Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62303#62303 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Transponder
From: "Dennis Jones" <djones(at)northboone.net>
Date: Sep 19, 2006
What is a strobe output/input for a transponder/encoder? Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62690#62690 ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Transponder
From: "europa flugzeug fabrik" <n3eu(at)comcast.net>
Date: Sep 20, 2006
Dennis Jones wrote: > What is a strobe output/input for a transponder/encoder? It's used so we can reply altitude to ATC when the encoder output is stable, not during the instant when bits might be flipping. Fred F. Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=62761#62761 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Andrew Olech" <olechap(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Backup Power supply for GNS-430?
Date: Oct 02, 2006
Hey guys, I posted this question to a Yahoo forum and someone suggested I post it here as well. For those in both forums, sorry for repeats! I would like to know if anyone out there has wired up a home-made backup power supply (rechargable/UPS variety) that, in my case, would feed something like a GNS-430? I prefer not spending an arm/leg on a COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) rig. Actually, let me tell you what I want to do and maybe there's a simpler solution... please read on. I want to be able to fire up Com & GPS prior to engine start in order to talk to the tower, get my clearance and program in the routing/waypoints. However, I am afraid of start-up spikes in the system, so I'd prefer to either cut the power to it or IDEALLY I'd isolate the 430 to its own battery momentarily so it can stay alive and be ready to roll. Hopefully some of you guys can relate and chime in: 1. Is it a long shutdown/recycle process for the 430? 2. Should I not worry about the startup spike and keep it on? 3. Is there a startup procedure that will minimize any power fluctuations (ie. waiting to turn on the alternator field until engine stabilizes) 4. Are there any special filters that I can use (I'm thinking no) 5. Wiring diagrams available / small rechargeable battery availability? 6. If I put it on a manual isolate switch, might I see enough of a spike/voltage drop during switching to trip the 430? 7. Is COTS the only way to go? Apologies for the lengthy email. Thoughts and comments will be much appreciated! -Andy RV-7, Finish ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 03, 2006
From: Gilles Thesee <Gilles.Thesee@ac-grenoble.fr>
Subject: Re: Backup Power supply for GNS-430?
Andrew, I installed a Garmin Series 400 in our four seater project. > > > I want to be able to fire up Com & GPS prior to engine start in order > to talk to the tower, get my clearance and program in the > routing/waypoints. However, I am afraid of start-up spikes in the > system, so I'd prefer to either cut the power to it or IDEALLY I'd > isolate the 430 to its own battery momentarily so it can stay alive > and be ready to roll. > Why not just switch your master switch on ? Just do what you want, and then start your engine. You afraid of start-up spikes ? Fear not, no one ever caught one with a scope or so. Hangar tales. Besides, modern avionics is totally immune to any transient the on-board circuit may throw at it. Still not convinced ? Turn off your radios before start-up, that's all. Why would you need your GPS during engine startup and pretaxi checks. Be careful with the "avionics master" some are still fond of : if the switch fails, you loose all your avionics. That's a single point failure. I usually turn the radios on just after startup. Regards, Gilles Thesee Grenoble, France http://contrails.free.fr ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carlos Trigo" <trigo(at)mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: Re: Backup Power supply for GNS-430?
Date: Oct 02, 2006
Hi Andrew Good questions, to which I would like to know the answers as well. Have you posted this in the AeroElectric list? Carlos ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew Olech To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:14 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Backup Power supply for GNS-430? Hey guys, I posted this question to a Yahoo forum and someone suggested I post it here as well. For those in both forums, sorry for repeats! I would like to know if anyone out there has wired up a home-made backup power supply (rechargable/UPS variety) that, in my case, would feed something like a GNS-430? I prefer not spending an arm/leg on a COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) rig. Actually, let me tell you what I want to do and maybe there's a simpler solution... please read on. I want to be able to fire up Com & GPS prior to engine start in order to talk to the tower, get my clearance and program in the routing/waypoints. However, I am afraid of start-up spikes in the system, so I'd prefer to either cut the power to it or IDEALLY I'd isolate the 430 to its own battery momentarily so it can stay alive and be ready to roll. Hopefully some of you guys can relate and chime in: 1. Is it a long shutdown/recycle process for the 430? 2. Should I not worry about the startup spike and keep it on? 3. Is there a startup procedure that will minimize any power fluctuations (ie. waiting to turn on the alternator field until engine stabilizes) 4. Are there any special filters that I can use (I'm thinking no) 5. Wiring diagrams available / small rechargeable battery availability? 6. If I put it on a manual isolate switch, might I see enough of a spike/voltage drop during switching to trip the 430? 7. Is COTS the only way to go? Apologies for the lengthy email. Thoughts and comments will be much appreciated! -Andy RV-7, Finish ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Backup Power supply for GNS-430?
Date: Oct 02, 2006
As far as I know starting spikes are always reverse voltage caused when disengaging the starter. Most radios and even the power distribution systems of larger turbine starter/generators have a healthy diode installed to shunt reverse voltage away from avionics equipment. This shouldn't be necessary on your RV7 unless you have been busy shoe horning a turbine in it. You can check your schematic for a reverse polarity diode where the positive terminal enters a unit. With such a diode installed any reverse voltage will be grounded. One thing to be careful about these diodes is if you wire your unit with reverse polarity it will cause a big spark without damaging sensitive components. Most units wired in this way have the diode in the circuit after a fuse. Wire it up in reverse and you will have to replace the fuse. In smaller piston engines where the starter and charging system are separate the battery itself should be able to filter out a pretty big spike, forward or reverse. The only thing I would avoid is trying to transmit and start the engine at the same time...not much chance of that happening. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Olech Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 7:44 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Backup Power supply for GNS-430? Hey guys, I posted this question to a Yahoo forum and someone suggested I post it here as well. For those in both forums, sorry for repeats! I would like to know if anyone out there has wired up a home-made backup power supply (rechargable/UPS variety) that, in my case, would feed something like a GNS-430? I prefer not spending an arm/leg on a COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) rig. Actually, let me tell you what I want to do and maybe there's a simpler solution... please read on. I want to be able to fire up Com & GPS prior to engine start in order to talk to the tower, get my clearance and program in the routing/waypoints. However, I am afraid of start-up spikes in the system, so I'd prefer to either cut the power to it or IDEALLY I'd isolate the 430 to its own battery momentarily so it can stay alive and be ready to roll. Hopefully some of you guys can relate and chime in: 1. Is it a long shutdown/recycle process for the 430? 2. Should I not worry about the startup spike and keep it on? 3. Is there a startup procedure that will minimize any power fluctuations (ie. waiting to turn on the alternator field until engine stabilizes) 4. Are there any special filters that I can use (I'm thinking no) 5. Wiring diagrams available / small rechargeable battery availability? 6. If I put it on a manual isolate switch, might I see enough of a spike/voltage drop during switching to trip the 430? 7. Is COTS the only way to go? Apologies for the lengthy email. Thoughts and comments will be much appreciated! -Andy RV-7, Finish ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 02, 2006
From: "Bob C. " <flyboy.bob(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Backup Power supply for GNS-430?
Andy, I plan to add a second smaller battery to support my 430, BMA Lite, Engine Monitor and Elec AH . . . more for backup in the air but could and probably will be used the way you suggest. In IFR Conditions it will be isolated from the other battery in VFR I'll probably cross connect putting them in parallel. Good Luck, Bob RV-8 Finishing Slowly! On 10/2/06, Andrew Olech wrote: > > > Hey guys, > > I posted this question to a Yahoo forum and someone suggested I post it here > as well. For those in both forums, sorry for repeats! > > > I would like to know if anyone out there has wired up a home-made > backup power supply (rechargable/UPS variety) that, in my case, would > feed something like a GNS-430? I prefer not spending an arm/leg on a > COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) rig. Actually, let me tell you what I > want to do and maybe there's a simpler solution... please read on. > > I want to be able to fire up Com & GPS prior to engine start in order > to talk to the tower, get my clearance and program in the > routing/waypoints. However, I am afraid of start-up spikes in the > system, so I'd prefer to either cut the power to it or IDEALLY I'd > isolate the 430 to its own battery momentarily so it can stay alive > and be ready to roll. > > Hopefully some of you guys can relate and chime in: > 1. Is it a long shutdown/recycle process for the 430? > 2. Should I not worry about the startup spike and keep it on? > 3. Is there a startup procedure that will minimize any power > fluctuations (ie. waiting to turn on the alternator field until engine > stabilizes) > 4. Are there any special filters that I can use (I'm thinking no) > 5. Wiring diagrams available / small rechargeable battery availability? > 6. If I put it on a manual isolate switch, might I see enough of a > spike/voltage drop during switching to trip the 430? > 7. Is COTS the only way to go? > > Apologies for the lengthy email. Thoughts and comments will be much > appreciated! > > -Andy > RV-7, > Finish > - The Avionics-List Email Forum - > Navigator to browse > page, > Photoshare, and much much more: > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List > - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - > the Web Forums! > http://forums.matronics.com > - NEW MATRONICS LIST WIKI - > Wiki! > http://wiki.matronics.com > - List Contribution Web Site - > -Matt Dralle, List Admin. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Backup Power supply for GNS-430?
Date: Oct 02, 2006
Item 6. Even better you could put a forward diode in the positive line to your GNS and then wire the second (stay alive) battery in parallel to the first that way if voltage from the main battery dropped below 12V. on start-up the second battery would keep the voltage up to the GNS 430 during starting. I'll attach a little thumb nail drawing. BTW this set up will keep the stay alive 12v battery charged while in normal operation. Both batteries would absorb forward spikes. I would suggest a small 12V gel pac cell or a battery pack of 9 or ten NiMh AAA batteries in series. There is a very slight voltage drop across the diode but not enough for the GNS 430 to notice it. just choose a diode to handle the current of the GNS. You'll be surprised how small these diodes are. For safety put a piece of heat shrink over the diode and its leads Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carlos Trigo Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:20 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Backup Power supply for GNS-430? Hi Andrew Good questions, to which I would like to know the answers as well. Have you posted this in the AeroElectric list? Carlos ----- Original Message ----- From: Andrew <mailto:olechap(at)comcast.net> Olech Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 11:14 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Backup Power supply for GNS-430? Hey guys, I posted this question to a Yahoo forum and someone suggested I post it here as well. For those in both forums, sorry for repeats! I would like to know if anyone out there has wired up a home-made backup power supply (rechargable/UPS variety) that, in my case, would feed something like a GNS-430? I prefer not spending an arm/leg on a COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) rig. Actually, let me tell you what I want to do and maybe there's a simpler solution... please read on. I want to be able to fire up Com & GPS prior to engine start in order to talk to the tower, get my clearance and program in the routing/waypoints. However, I am afraid of start-up spikes in the system, so I'd prefer to either cut the power to it or IDEALLY I'd isolate the 430 to its own battery momentarily so it can stay alive and be ready to roll. Hopefully some of you guys can relate and chime in: 1. Is it a long shutdown/recycle process for the 430? 2. Should I not worry about the startup spike and keep it on? 3. Is there a startup procedure that will minimize any power fluctuations (ie. waiting to turn on the alternator field until engine stabilizes) 4. Are there any special filters that I can use (I'm thinking no) 5. Wiring diagrams available / small rechargeable battery availability? 6. If I put it on a manual isolate switch, might I see enough of a spike/voltage drop during switching to trip the 430? 7. Is COTS the only way to go? Apologies for the lengthy email. Thoughts and comments will be much appreciated! -Andy RV-7, Finish onics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug Bidault" <dbidault(at)swri.edu>
Subject: Manual needed
Date: Oct 03, 2006
I'm looking for a manual for a Narco NS9000 Nav Receiver. If anyone has one available please email me direct at dbidault(at)swri.edu Thanks, Doug Bidault ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2006
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: MicroAir Radios
Joe, As the former Technical Director of AOPA Australia, I have considerable knowledge of their reliability, and it is good. MicroAir is also about to release a Mode S version of their transponder. I should also declare that Phil Ainsworth, President of MicroAir, is a very old friend of mine, but I don't think that taints my view. My experience of dealing with member's problems suggest that in reliability, they are second only to the small panel mount COMs, and somewhat better than several well known names, due to the relatively modern engineering and electronic design Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 01:29 AM 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2006
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: MicroAir Radios
Folks, Slight correction, for COMs, read ICOM. Cheers, Bill Hamilton Joe, As the former Technical Director of AOPA Australia, I have considerable knowledge of their reliability, and it is good. MicroAir is also about to release a Mode S version of their transponder. I should also declare that Phil Ainsworth, President of MicroAir, is a very old friend of mine, but I don't think that taints my view. My experience of dealing with member's problems suggest that in reliability, they are second only to the small panel mount COMs, and somewhat better than several well known names, due to the relatively modern engineering and electronic design Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 01:29 AM 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. 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 04, 2006
From: "D. Joe Smith" <jsmith(at)syntherica.com>
Subject: MicroAir Radios
Bill, Thanks for the information. I am especially interested to hear that a Mode-S transponder will be available soon. The only 2-1/4 inch Mode S transponder that I know of is the Becker unit, and it would be good to see some competition in this space. Anybody Down Under working on a 406MHz ELT for experimental/general aviation? Joe D. Joe Smith Syntherica Corporation 4727 University Drive, Suite 700 Durham, NC 27707 (919) 403-3232 -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R HAMILTON Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:40 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios Folks, Slight correction, for COMs, read ICOM. Cheers, Bill Hamilton Joe, As the former Technical Director of AOPA Australia, I have considerable knowledge of their reliability, and it is good. MicroAir is also about to release a Mode S version of their transponder. I should also declare that Phil Ainsworth, President of MicroAir, is a very old friend of mine, but I don't think that taints my view. My experience of dealing with member's problems suggest that in reliability, they are second only to the small panel mount COMs, and somewhat better than several well known names, due to the relatively modern engineering and electronic design Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 01:29 AM 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 Avionics-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List - List Contribution Web Site - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/contribution 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. 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: "Ing. Gottfried Komaier" <gottfried.komaier(at)gmx.net>
Subject: MicroAir Radios
Date: Oct 04, 2006
Folks, have a look to the FILSER electronic page http://www.filser.de/onlineshop/. There are the finest TXP's, VHF Radios,.... at a fair price. The TXP's are available in Flatpack or in the Normhousing 21/4". The TXP includes the Altitude Encoder as well. I hope this helps. Gottfried Komaier Vienna, Austria Europe _____ Von: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] Im Auftrag von D. Joe Smith Gesendet: Mittwoch, 04. Oktober 2006 14:07 An: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Betreff: RE: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios Bill, Thanks for the information. I am especially interested to hear that a Mode-S transponder will be available soon. The only 2-1/4 inch Mode S transponder that I know of is the Becker unit, and it would be good to see some competition in this space. Anybody Down Under working on a 406MHz ELT for experimental/general aviation? Joe D. Joe Smith Syntherica Corporation 4727 University Drive, Suite 700 Durham, NC 27707 (919) 403-3232 -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R HAMILTON Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:40 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios Folks, Slight correction, for COMs, read ICOM. Cheers, Bill Hamilton Joe, As the former Technical Director of AOPA Australia, I have considerable knowledge of their reliability, and it is good. MicroAir is also about to release a Mode S version of their transponder. I should also declare that Phil Ainsworth, President of MicroAir, is a very old friend of mine, but I don't think that taints my view. My experience of dealing with member's problems suggest that in reliability, they are second only to the small panel mount COMs, and somewhat better than several well known names, due to the relatively modern engineering and electronic design Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 01:29 AM 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 Avionics-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List - List Contribution Web Site - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/contribution 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. 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. http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List http://forums.matronics.com http://wiki.matronics.com http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Please Read and help if you can.. Thank You
From: "rc51mike" <rc51mike(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Oct 04, 2006
My cousin, Marcy Randolph, was on the Cessna 182, plane number N2700Q with the pilot, William Westover, flying from Deer Valley to Sedona on 9/24 that has been missing since that same Sunday afternoon. The Civil Air Patrol has been searching since Tuesday 9/26. The Phoenix police are also continuing the search. We the family are trying to touch people personally. We so greatly appreciate the energy and time you have given us and are overwhelmed by the support and caring of everyone we have come in contact with. That said we still dont have the plane. My request to you is outlined on the website under what you can do. Basically, we want to rally any private pilots, any charter pilots, any forestry individuals, medical carriers, flight school instructors and students, and anybody else that might have a reason to be in the air and provide eyes in the sky in the general northern Arizona region to be aware and keep their eyes and ears open. Additionally, knowing that a great number of you enjoy the beautiful outdoors of Arizona, either for hunting, camping, ohv riding, etc., we are asking that you be acutely aware of this missing plane, and rally everyone that might be on the ground in the general area. By providing areas you might have been, we can help narrow the profile and thin the veritable haystack in which we are trying to find the needle. Think outside the boxany information is good information. At 9 days and counting, time is not on our side. We have recent information that a plane was spotted briefly on radar approximately 4 miles west of Payson at around 12:15pm 9/24. This may or may not be relevant. The website for information exchange is http://www.N2700Q.com. Details of the LKP are contained in the introduction. Please take the flyer that is posted and distribute to your folks for briefing or feel free to forward this message to anyone you think might be able to assist us in our search. Your assistance and prayers are most appreciated. Mike Turner rc51mike(at)yahoo.com Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=65847#65847 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 05, 2006
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: MicroAir Radios
Joe, Becker is certainly top quality, but the price-- Ouch!! Cheers, Bill Hamilton ---------- At 10:07 PM 4/10/2006, you wrote: >Bill, > >Thanks for the information. I am especially interested to hear that >a Mode-S transponder will be available soon. The only 2-1/4 inch >Mode S transponder that I know of is the Becker unit, and it would >be good to see some competition in this space. > >Anybody Down Under working on a 406MHz ELT for experimental/general aviation? > >Joe > >D. Joe Smith >Syntherica Corporation >4727 University Drive, Suite 700 >Durham, NC 27707 >(919) 403-3232 > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R HAMILTON >Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:40 PM >To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios > >Folks, >Slight correction, for COMs, read ICOM. >Cheers, >Bill Hamilton > > >Joe, >As the former Technical Director of AOPA Australia, I have >considerable knowledge of their reliability, and it is good. >MicroAir is also about to release a Mode S version of their transponder. >I should also declare that Phil Ainsworth, President of MicroAir, is >a very old friend of mine, but I don't think that taints my view. >My experience of dealing with member's problems suggest that in >reliability, they are second only to the small panel mount COMs, and >somewhat better than several well known names, due to the relatively >modern engineering and electronic design >Cheers, >Bill Hamilton > > >At 01:29 AM 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 > > >Avionics-List Email Forum - > >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List >- List Contribution Web Site - >-Matt Dralle, List Admin. >http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > >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. > > >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. > > >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List > > >http://forums.matronics.com > > >http://wiki.matronics.com > > >http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: antenna interference
Date: Oct 23, 2006
10/23/2006 Hello Bob Nuckolls and other antenna experts, Some time ago a fellow builder installed an Advanced Aircraft Electronics comm antenna in the vertical stab of his composite (fiberglass) airplane. The antenna is a straight one piece dipole with balun in center. The reception was tested with a radio and found to be excellent. In attaching the rudder, a full length aluminum piano style hinge was installed. This is one of the builder's modifications to the original plans that called for separate short segments of aluminum piano type hinge for the rudder. When testing the reception again with the same transmitter the reception was practically nonexistent. The builder would like to retain use of the antenna and come up with a (nearly continuous) hinge solution that will permit adequate transmission and reception. Various solutions have been proposed: 1) Use a continuous piano type hinge made out of plastic. (Guden makes them). 2) Use a continuous piano type hinge made out of carbon fiber. http://www.carbinge.com/index.html 3) Use a basically continuous full length piano type hinge made out of carbon fiber, but cut it a number of times during its length into shorter than full length segments. 4) Use a basically continuous full length piano type hinge made out of aluminum, but cut it a number of times during its length into shorter than full length segments. 5) Abandon the continuous hinge concept and install separate short segments of metal hinge as the plans call for. We would appreciate your inputs and advice. Thanks. OC ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 23, 2006
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: antenna interference
>4) Use a basically continuous full length piano type hinge made out of aluminum, but cut it a number of times during its length into shorter than full length segments. It might be sufficient to cut it once only a few inches away from the center. It might also be enough to cut just the rod into two pieces with an insulator between them You might also try bonding both sides of the hinge to airframe ground. Well. . . that doesn't mean connecting it to the fiberglass. The idea is to move the resonance to longer wavelengths by making the hinge electrically longer as opposed to cutting it to make it shorter. And the # 10 thought. . . . Remove the dipole antenna and put a BNC connector on the hinge. -- --> If it's not on fire it's a software problem. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: antenna interference
Date: Oct 23, 2006
Plastic or carbon fibre. Any short pieces of metal can be parasitic elements. Pieces shorter than 4" spaced at least 4" apart shouldn't cause the parasitic signal loss you experience. Try holding the short hinge segments to your vertical stab. with string before you commit to an installation. One Question... Is the leading edge of your rudder reinforced with metal ?? If so the hinge is only part of your problem. The system you have installed should be one of the best available. Completely omni directional. Noel > -----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, October 23, 2006 4:12 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: antenna interference > > > > 10/23/2006 > > Hello Bob Nuckolls and other antenna experts, > > Some time ago a fellow builder installed an Advanced > Aircraft Electronics > comm antenna in > the vertical stab of his composite (fiberglass) airplane. > The antenna is a > straight one piece dipole with balun in center. > > The reception was tested with a radio and found to be excellent. In > attaching the rudder, a full length aluminum piano style hinge was > installed. This is one of the builder's modifications to the > original plans > that called for separate short segments of aluminum piano > type hinge for the > rudder. > > When testing the reception again with the same transmitter > the reception was > practically nonexistent. > > The builder would like to retain use of the antenna and come > up with a > (nearly continuous) hinge solution that will permit adequate > transmission > and reception. Various solutions have been proposed: > > 1) Use a continuous piano type hinge made out of plastic. > (Guden makes > them). > > 2) Use a continuous piano type hinge made out of carbon fiber. > > http://www.carbinge.com/index.html > > 3) Use a basically continuous full length piano type hinge > made out of > carbon fiber, but cut it a number of times during its length > into shorter > than full length segments. > > 4) Use a basically continuous full length piano type hinge > made out of > aluminum, but cut it a number of times during its length into > shorter than > full length segments. > > 5) Abandon the continuous hinge concept and install separate > short segments > of metal hinge as the plans call for. > > We would appreciate your inputs and advice. Thanks. > > OC > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: antenna interference
Date: Oct 23, 2006
I don't know what kind of plane this antenna is in but it sounds like part of the problem is the hinge is very close to 1/2 lambda (18-20") away from the antenna and is oriented parallel to it. Changing the resonant length of the hinges is a good starting place. Grounding the hinge will probably result in an RF shadow somewhere behind the plane. I think the best thing to do is to look at shorter segments of varying lengths with varying spaces between the segments. Or go straight to plastic or composite hinges... Don't forget the hinge pins also should be non metallic if plastic or composite hinges are used. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Doug McNutt > Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 6:14 PM > To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com; avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: antenna interference > > > > > >4) Use a basically continuous full length piano type hinge > made out of aluminum, but cut it a number of times during its > length into shorter than full length segments. > > It might be sufficient to cut it once only a few inches away > from the center. > > It might also be enough to cut just the rod into two pieces > with an insulator between them > > You might also try bonding both sides of the hinge to > airframe ground. Well. . . that doesn't mean connecting it to > the fiberglass. The idea is to move the resonance to longer > wavelengths by making the hinge electrically longer as > opposed to cutting it to make it shorter. > > And the # 10 thought. . . . Remove the dipole antenna and put > a BNC connector on the hinge. > > -- > --> If it's not on fire it's a software problem. <-- > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: James Beeghly <jbeeghly(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Oct 29, 2006
Subject: Crimping tool question - finding a Molex 6115 Series crimper
We are installing a Bendix-King KY97 radio. It uses a Molex connector on the back of the card which, in turn, uses Bendix-King Part number 030-01107-00XX pins. The manual indicates that these should be crimped with a Molex Series 6115 crimper. At the Molex site, entering 6115 leads to the 11-01-0203 crimper. As far as I can find, this is a $200.00 tool. Does anyone know if there is an alternative tool available that will make acceptable crimps and is not quite so pricey? So far I have not found a used 6115 for sale. Jim Beeghly
We are installing a Bendix-King KY97 radio.  It uses a Molex connector on the back of the card which, in turn, uses Bendix-King Part number 030-01107-00XX pins.  The manual indicates that these should be crimped with a Molex Series 6115 crimper.  
 
At the Molex site, entering 6115 leads to the 11-01-0203 crimper.  As far as I can find, this is a $200.00 tool.  Does anyone know if there is an alternative tool available that will make acceptable crimps and is not quite so pricey?  So far I have not found a used 6115 for sale.
 
Jim Beeghly

      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Crimping tool question - finding a Molex 6115 Series
crimper
Date: Oct 29, 2006
These are well made pieces of equipment and are usually only used by professionals. they are ratchet crimpers that give a consistent crimp to every connection. I would advise you to have an avionics shop to make up the cables for you. You can spend time making interconnect diagrams with the lengths of each cable marked so they will fit where you want them. If there is anything wrong with the interconnect diagram as you have it drawn up the avionics shop will be able to advise you on revisions before one crimp is made or a piece of expensive equipment is damaged. Five or ten years down the road you will have an accurate diagram of exactly how your avionics were installed. this is very handy if you want to make future upgrades or changes. I expect having the job done by an avionics shop won't cost you any more than the crimper and the job will be warranted. If you are the local electronics whiz then get the crimper and make everyone's cables to pay for it. There is a lot more to doing this type of work than making a few crimps. Noel -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of James Beeghly Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2006 11:48 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Crimping tool question - finding a Molex 6115 Series crimper We are installing a Bendix-King KY97 radio. It uses a Molex connector on the back of the card which, in turn, uses Bendix-King Part number 030-01107-00XX pins. The manual indicates that these should be crimped with a Molex Series 6115 crimper. At the Molex site, entering 6115 leads to the 11-01-0203 crimper. As far as I can find, this is a $200.00 tool. Does anyone know if there is an alternative tool available that will make acceptable crimps and is not quite so pricey? So far I have not found a used 6115 for sale. Jim Beeghly ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2006
From: Dan Billingsley <dan(at)azshowersolutions.com>
Subject: Re: Crimping tool question - finding a Molex 6115 Series
crimper Are you familliar with Bob Nuckolls? His site is the Aeroelectric Connection and he is a wizzard in this arena. If anyone would know the answer to your question, he would. Go to his site, e-mail him and he will get back...it may take a week as he is very busy. Hope this helps. Dan B. Mesa, AZ http://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars/seminars.html James Beeghly wrote: We are installing a Bendix-King KY97 radio. It uses a Molex connector on the back of the card which, in turn, uses Bendix-King Part number 030-01107-00XX pins. The manual indicates that these should be crimped with a Molex Series 6115 crimper. At the Molex site, entering 6115 leads to the 11-01-0203 crimhttp://www.aeroelectric.com/seminars/seminars.htmlper. As far as I can find, this is a $200.00 tool. Does anyone know if there is an alternative tool available that will make acceptable crimps and is not quite so pricey? So far I have not found a used 6115 for sale. Jim Beeghly ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Oct 29, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Comcast Was Blocking Matronics Email Lists...
Dear Listers (Specifically Comcast Listers), For about the last two days, Comcast was blocking incoming email from the Matronics Email Lists because their spam filters thought the mail was spam. I was that people on Comcast are receiving List messages again. If you are a Comcast user, you might want to email them and express your displeasure with their Spam blocking policy, particularly as it relates to "matronics.com". Sorry for the hassle... Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Admin 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 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 01, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Matronics Email List Fund Raiser - November!
Dear Listers, Each November I hold a PBS-like fund raiser to support the continued operation and upgrade of the List services at Matronics. It's through these sole Contributions of List members that these Matronics Lists are possible. You have probably noticed that there are no banner ads or pop-up windows on any of the Matronics Lists or related web sites such as the Forums site ( http://forums.matronics.com ), Wiki site ( http://wiki.matronics.com ), or other related pages such as the List Search Engine ( http://www.matornics.com/search ), List Browse ( http://www.matornics.com/listbrowse ), etc. This is because I believe in a List experience that is completely about the sport we all enjoy - namely Airplanes and not about annoying advertisments. During the month of November I will be sending out List messages every few days reminding everyone that the Fund Raiser is underway. Each message will generally highlight a particular feature or benefit of the Matronics Lists or detail a new feature or service that was added this year. I ask for your patience and understanding during the Fund Raiser and throughout these regular messages. The Fund Raiser is only financial support mechanism I have to pay all of the bills associated with running these lists. Once again, this year I've got a terrific line up of free gifts to go along with the various Contribution levels. Most all of these gifts have been provided by some of the vary members and vendors that you'll find on Matronics Lists and have been either donated or provided at substantially discounted rates. This year, these generous people include Bob Nuckolls of the AeroElectric Connection (http://www.aeroelectric.com/), Paul Besing of Aeroware Enterprises aka Kitlog Pro (http://www.kitlog.com/), Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore (http://www.buildersbooks.com/), and Jon Croke of HomebuiltHELP (http://www.homebuilthelp.com/). These are extremely generous guys and I encourage you to visit their respective web sites. Each one offers a unique and very useful aviation-related product line. I would like publicly to thank Bob, Paul, Andy, and Jon for their generous support of the Lists again this year!! You can make your List Contribution using any one of three secure methods this year including using a credit card, PayPal, or by personal check. All three methods afford you the opportunity to select one of this year's free gifts with a qualifying Contribution amount!! To make your Contribution, please visit the secure site below: https://www.matronics.com/contribution I would like to thank everyone in advance for their generous financial AND moral support over the years. I know it sounds a little cliche, but you guys really do feel like family. Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 03, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Have You Tried The New Matronics List Forum?
Hello Listers, One of the major new additions to the Matronics Email Lists this year was the addition of a new and full function Forum Web Site at: http://forums.matronics.com The best part of these new Forums is that they are tied directly to the Classic email distribution Lists! That also means that posts go in both directions. If you post a message on the Forum web site, it will be cross posted to the respective Email List. And, if you post a message to a particular Email List, it will be cross posted to the same respective forum on the Forum site! So, no matter what your content viewing pleasure is - either direct email distribution or web-based GUI interface, you can have it at the Matronics Email Lists! Won't you make a Contribution to support these Lists? It is your SOLE Contributions that make their continued operation and upgrade possible! The Contribution site is Fast, Easy, and Secure. Please surf over and make your Contribution today: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you!! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator _- _- _- _- _- _- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 06, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Wow, Cool! New List Feature... [Please Read]
Dear Listers, By popular suggestion, I've written a substantial new code module for the Matronics Email Lists system. Here's how it works... During each November, I send out quite a few PBS-like "Please make a Contribution to support your List" emails. Wouldn't it be cool if, once a member made a Contribution, they didn't have to receive my support pleas anymore for the rest of that year? Well, that's exactly what I've written! Following this posting, anyone that makes a List Contribution in 2006 will no longer receive my Contribution Pleas for the rest of the year! The best part is this not only applies to the Realtime distribution, but also the Digest distribution! For those that have made a Contribution, the Daily Digest email-version will be invisibly stripped of my requests as well! (Note that my requests will still be present in the online versions of the Digests, List Browse, and on the Forum site.) For those submitting their Contribution by personal Check, please be sure to include your email address along with your Check as this is what is used to determine eligibility. So, in a nutshell, here's how it works: Make a Contribution = No more "Please Make a Contribution" messages! How sweet is that? If that's not a great reason to jump on the Matronics Email List Contribution site and make your donation today, I don't know what is! Don't forget that there are some totally awesome free gifts to be had along with your List Contribution this year!! Don't wait a minute longer to support your Lists! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you for your Support!! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: If You Got This Email, You Haven't Made A Contribution
Yet! :-) If you received this particular Matronics List Email message, its because you haven't yet made a Contribution to support your Lists! This is the first PBS-like funds drive message under the new distribution system. The new system selectively sends out the Contribution messages ONLY to those that forgot to whip out the 'ol credit card this year to support the continued operation and upgrade of the Matronics Email Lists! Don't you wish PBS worked that way? :-) You heard that right. Once you make your Contribution, these support requests messages during November will suddenly stop coming to your personal email inbox! Pardon me if I seem kind of excited about the new feature. I've wanted to implement something like this for a number of years now, but it was always such a daunting task to modify the back-end List processing code, that I just kept putting it off. Finally this year, I just decided to bite the bullet and put the code-pounding time it to make it work. A few days later, bam! A working system! Anyway, I'll stop gushing now. I really do appreciate each and every one of your individual Contributions to support the Lists. It is your support that enables me to upgrade the hardware and software that are required to run a List Site like this. It also goes to pay for the Commercial-Grade Internet connection and to pay the rather huge electric bill to keep the computer gear running and the air conditioner powered up. Your personal Contribution matters because when combined with other Listers such as yourself, it pays the bills to keep this site up and running. I accept exactly ZERO advertising dollars for the Matronics Lists sites. I can't stand the pop-up ads and all other commercialism that is so prevalent on the Internet these days and I particularly don't want to have it on my Email List site. I'm pretty sure you don't either. If you appreciate the ad-free, grass-roots, down-home feel of the Matronics Email Lists, please make a Contribution today to keep it that way!! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 08, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Clarification On New Contribution Module Operation...
Dear Listers, A number of Listers emailed and indicated that, even though they had made a Contribution this year, they still received the Contribution message yesterday. I looked into it and I found a slight anomaly (ok, bug) in the new code specifically as it related to Listers that had made their Contribution through PayPal AND have a DIFFERENT email address for their PayPal account and for their Matronics List subscription. If your PayPal account email address is DIFFERENT than the email address you are subscribed to the Matronics List(s) as, then my new code module couldn't tell that you had made a Contribution, since it was using the PayPal email address instead of the List email. I've fixed this issue for any new PayPal Contributions, but I don't have any easy way of resolving this for any of the previous Contribtuions. Again, this is ONLY an issue if your PayPal and Matronics List email addresses ARE NOT the same. Otherwise, everything works great. If you made a PayPal Contribution before 11/09/06 AND your email addresses don't match, please drop me an email at " info(at)matronics.com " (do not reply to this message!) and give me your Name, and both Email Addresses and I will manually update the records so that things will work as advertised. Sorry for the hassle! New code; new bugs... :-) To make a Contribution, please see: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administration ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 10, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Wiki...
Dear Listers, I added a new Wiki web site to the Matronics Email List features earlier this year. What's a Wiki, you ask? Well, here's the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki) definition: A wiki (IPA: [ w .ki ] or [ wi .ki ] ) is a type of Web site that allows the visitors themselves to easily add, remove, and otherwise edit and change some available content, sometimes without the need for registration. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for collaborative authoring. The term wiki also can refer to the collaborative software itself (wiki engine) that facilitates the operation of such a Web site, or to certain specific wiki sites, including the computer science site (an original wiki), WikiWikiWeb, and on-line encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. Under the Matronics Email List Moniker, there is now a very nice List-specific Wiki available! It a place for Listers to put articles about any aviation topic that suits them. The purpose is to provide what the mailing lists do not: structure and persistence. The mailing lists are a fantastic resource to ask a question and get good (and bad and funny and annoying) answers. But once the question is asked and answered it is not in front of the List anymore. If a new person subscribes the next day, he/she does not see that information unless he/she goes to the trouble to search the archives, a hit or miss proposition. The result is that the same thread of conversation gets created and/or revisited. There are several things that happen as a result: 1. The person gets his or her question answered; 2. The information gets better as more people think about and answer the question; 3. The people who have seen the same question asked and answered get annoyed at seeing the same things over and over and over and ... So this is where the Wiki comes in. You know what questions you wanted answered. You may have asked or answered the question. You know the information is useful. So you put the information here, in the Matronics Email List Wiki! It doesn't matter that this information is 100% complete or correct. Just writing something creates a placeholder and makes useful information available immediately. It has the same immediacy as the mailing list but it has persistence and structure. But what if the information is incomplete or incorrect? No problem! Anyone else coming along can edit the article! If I write something and you discover something I have left out or stated incorrectly, you can fix it right then! So let's begin and make this the place for information about building, flying, maintaining, and understanding our airplanes. But what about whether something is "appropriate" or not? Don't worry. Write it down. Let the reader determine whether or not it is appropriate. If it is, he/she will read it. If it isn't, he/she won't. It's as simple as that. And when you do write that article you won't have to worry about whether some editor is going to decide whether or not to print it in a newsletter or whether the webmaster will have time to put it up on the web page. The last question I hear brewing out there is: if anyone can post anything, won't this just become a mass of garbage? Surprisingly, the answer is a resounding no. If you want proof, go visit the Wikipedia, a free-to-everyone encyclopedia written by whoever wants to write articles. The articles there are as good as anything I have read anywhere and anyone can add anything anytime they want to. So don't hesitate. Write it down. Put it here. It will never hurt anyone. The more information we get here, the more useful it will become to other people and the more information they will put here for YOU to use. Here's the URL to start (there are lots more bured under this starting place): http://www.matronics.com/wiki/index.php/Matronics:Community_Portal But please don't forget that this Wiki and all of the other Matronics Email List features are supported solely by YOUR Contributions!! November is List Fund Raiser month and there are lots of Free Gifts to be had with your qualifying Contribution. Please make a Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great services!!! Thank you! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 13, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: WLAS [Please Read]
Dear Listers, I sat down at the 'ol computer tonight to have a look at a few of the nice comments List Members have been including along with their Contributions this year. I was amazed at how many I found and even more amazed at some of the very nice things Listers have been saying about the Lists and how valuable the they are to them. I've included quite a few of these nice comments below. Please read over some of this great Lister feedback. No doubt you will find that you agree with at least one or two of those comments - maybe all of them! If you find that do, won't you please make a Contribution to support these Lists today!! Its fast and easy with the Matronics List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Don't forget that I've now fully implemented the new *List Fund Raiser Squelch* feature that will automatically intercept any future iterations of my "Please Contribute" messages -- that is, *once you've made YOUR Contribution*! How cool is that? (Make sure the email address you enter along with your Contribution matches exactly your subscribed List email address. An exact match is how it works.) Thank you for your generous Contributions this year and for all the wonderful comments!! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ================= What Listers Are Saying (WLAS) ================ Absolutely the best deal on the Internet!! -Owen B I love The Matronics... -Robeto B My wife has her soaps & I've got my lists! -Hal B These lists are, indeed, the lifeline of our hobby. -Bob R The best source of information for my a/c. -Tony C The Zenith list is the first thing I read in the morning. -Herbert H You do more good than you can imagine. I wish I'd known about you while I was building my Kitfox, but you are still an after-the-fact resource. -Ben B ..an excellent site. -Ashley M The "List" has been the ultimate help for my Zenith CH 701 project!! -Brian U I appreciate the list being here for me. -Geoff H ..a great service. -William C The List continues to be an interesting and useful facility. -David M Your list is a constant goad to keep me working on my project. -Thomas S ..a great service. -Robert W The Pietenpol list is a great resource. -Benjamin W The Yak-list is Awesome! -James S ..great service. -Robert S The features you have implemented recently have you poised to knock out yahoo groups... -Danny D I like how your forum looks/works and the list service... -Ken E ..great service. -David P Very useful web site. -Wayne E ..a very valuable service. -Chris D Great sites... -Randall R I used to look at [that other] site also but it's gotten so cluttered with advertising that I've stopped looking at it. -Wayne E Without your services, the build would be a grope in the dark... -Fergus K The information and help I've received greatly outweighs the donation... -Lee P ..great service! -Christopher D I really don't think I could be building my plane without the wisdom I find on this list. -William G It really makes building a pleasure. -James P ..great service. -Doug W I'm getting near the end of my build (Europa tri XS) don't think I could have done it with out the help of the forum. -Stanislaus S Marvelous service. Couldn't have done it without you. -Jim G Love the list, this is a wonderful way to help others... -Michael S ..good service. -Derek L The list is responsible for helping me complete this project and educating me in the process. -Jeff D Definitely worth the donation. -Ron L ..great service to the aviation community. -Tony P I have been flying my plane for 5 years (RV-6) but I still get valuable information from this service. -Don N A very helpful site. -Roland S It's a great community to be part of. -David L Great sites. -John C A great place to find and share not only information but to meet people across the country and make lasting relationships. -Uncle Craig Great facility. -Peter H Its a great source of information! -Michael W Great improvements to the List... -Edward A Great service!!! -Rich D ..great resource! -William C ..excellent lists! -Michael S Couldn't have built my RV4 without the list. -Warren M ..a great service... -James N I would not have missed [the list] for anything during the building of my Europa. -Svein J ..another great year. -Robert D ..this [is an] essential builder's resource. -David A ..excellent service. -Gregory B I've learned a huge amount of "stuff" over the past year and look forward to it every day! -Smith M ..a great communication tool... -Jon M Finished building 5 years ago, but still are lurking on your great list! -Lothar K ..a valuable service. At 11:00 pm Matronics is the goto place for my RV questions. -Mike D ================= What Listers Are Saying (WLAS) ================ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Avionics Problem
Date: Nov 14, 2006
> 11/12/2006 > > Hello Fellow Listers, Can any of you please offer help to Joe Cardinale? > See his problem below. Many Thanks. > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Josephcardinale2(at)aol.com> > To: > Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2006 8:48 PM > Subject: Avionics Problem > > >> Hello: >> >> I've got a problem that I hope maybe one of you guys can help me >> with. >> >> As you know from the list, I bought Jim Lagowski's TR1. Jim kind of >> put all his eggs in one basket when it came to his choice of avionics. >> He used >> a combination NAV/COM/GLIDESLOPE/LOCALIZER and INTERCOM. The name of the >> unit is ICS Plus. It was sold thru Wag Aero and others. The unit quit >> on me a >> while ago and I've been trying to find a shop that can repair it. I sent >> it >> back to the outlet Jim bought it from(Sky Sport in Linden, Michigan). Sky >> Sport said they could not repair it and the manufacturer is now out of >> business. They did determine that the problem was in the power supply. >> I guess >> what I am asking is would any of you guys know a shop willing to repair >> the >> unit? Not knowing much about radio's I don't even know what the power >> supply is. >> I realize it is not going to be cheap but it won't be cheap to replace >> it >> either. >> >> I'm sure a lot of you will feel that I probably would be wise to bite >> the bullet now and replace it, but I really don't feel like doing that >> right >> now because I feel it would be kind of messy. Any help would sure be >> appreciated. Thanks >> >> Joe Cardinale ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 15, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: LOC
Each year at the end of the List Fund Raiser, I post a message acknowledging everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its sort of my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. Won't you take a moment and assure that your name is on that List of Contributors (LOC)? As a number of members have pointed out over the years, the List seems at least - if not a whole lot more - valuable as a building/flying/recreating/entertainment tool as your typical magazine subscription! Please take minute and assure that your name is on this year's LOC! Show others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Credit card or Paypal on the Secure Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution or by popping a personal check in the mail to: Matt Dralle / Matronics PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists going and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 17, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List Value...
If you look forward to checking your List email everyday (and a lot of you have written to say that you do!), then you're probably getting at least 0 or 0 worth of Entertainment from the Lists each year. You'd pay twice that for a subscription to some lame magazine or even a dinner out. Isn't the List worth at least that much to you? Wouldn't it be great if you could pay that same amount and get a well-managed media source free of advertising, SPAM, and viruses? Come to think of it, you do... Won't you please take a minute to make your Contribution today and support YOUR Lists? Contribution Page: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Again, I want to say THANK YOU to everyone that has made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser!! These Lists are made possible exclusively through YOUR generosity!! Thank you for your support! Matt Dralle Email List Admin. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 20, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Why? [Please Read]
Dear Listers, Each year I like to explain why I have a Fund Raiser and also take the opportunity to express why I think the List Services here provide a superior experience over the commercial equivalents. I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with running a high performance email list site such as this one. With the annual support from the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I have found I can run the entire site without having to inflect any of the members with those annoying banner ads flashing up all the time trying to sell little-blue-pills or other garbage nobody wants or needs. From the comments I've received over the years regarding the Lists, the great majority of the members really appreciate the non-commercialism of my List systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once a year during November to encourage members to support the Lists. I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer many benefits over the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first feature I believe to be significant is that you cannot receive a computer v*rus from any of these Lists directly. Each incoming message is filtered and dangerous attachments stripped off prior to posting. I also provide a Photo and File Share feature that allows members to share files and bitmaps with other members and everyone can be assured that these files will be prescanned for any sort of v*rus before they are posted. Safe and simple. Another very important feature of this system in my opinion is the extensive List Archives that are available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives go all the way back to the very beginning of each List and with the very fast Search Engine, the huge size of some of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly finding the data you're looking for. And added just this year is the new Email List Forum that allows members who prefer the Web BBS-style of List interaction. The beauty of the new List Forums is that they contain the exact same content that is distributed via email. Messages posted via email are cross-posted to the respective Forum and vice versa. The Forums also allow for another convenient method of sharing pictures and other files. Additionally added this year is the new List Wiki that allows members to build their own "Online List Encyclopedia" of sorts, documenting various aspects of their project for all to share. I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain since about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys I knew and who where also building RVs. It has grown into nearly 70 different aviation-related Email Lists and an associated web site that receives over 23,000,000 hits each year!! Additionally, the List Email system forwarded well over 87,000 postings last year, accounting for an unbelievable 39,000,000 (yes, that's 39 MILLION) email messages delivered to Matronics List subscribers! I think there's a lot of value in supporting a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing and improving a high quality service all _without any advertising budget_! I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows in the quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email Message, Search the Archives, use the List Browser, or surf the Forums and Wiki sites. The Lists will be here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a while for free, that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate, and receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual List Fund Raiser! List Contribution Web Site: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 22, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists...
Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution too! The Contribution Site is fast and easy: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists...
Date: Nov 22, 2006
From: "Rueb, Duane" <ruebd(at)skymail.csus.edu>
Matt: I will make my contribution next week. Duane -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Matt Dralle Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 1:01 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Please Make a Contribution to Support Your Lists... Dear Listers, Just a reminder that November is the Annual List Fund Raiser. Please make a Contribution today to support the continued operation and upgrade of these great List services!! Pick up a really nice free gift with your qualifying Contribution too! The Contribution Site is fast and easy: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 24, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: More Great List Comments - Please Make A Contribution!
Dear Listers, There's a little less than one week left for this year's List Fund Raiser. I thought it would a great time to share a few more of the great comments I've been receiving from Contributors regarding what the Lists mean to them. There are some particularly poignant ones in this batch and I encourage you to have a look at some of them. Don't forget that once you make your Contribution, the Contribution Squelch kicks in and you won't receive any future messages from me regarding the Fund Raiser this year! This holds true for the Realtime and Digest distributions and now also the HTML and TXT links included with the Digest! (Note that for technical reasons, if someone replies to one of my contribution messages, the Squelch will _not_ be activated, and you will still receive it. Contribution messages will also still be found on the Forums site and the List Browse). Please make your Contribution today to support these List services! Pick up a great Gift too! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ============================= WLAS #2 ============================ Tackling my project without the List would be like building on a deserted island. The List has made me part of a learning (and laughing) community. -Larry W Thank you for providing such a fantastic resource for us Kolbers. I'm very happy to contribute towards keeping such a wonderful resource available. -Geoff T ..you do a great service for the flying community by providing this service. -John L ..solidly administered. -James C A great source of information. -Ralph S The Lists have likely saved a numbers of lives... -James F ..exceptional user service. -Larry W Better than a magazine! -Aaron G Thanks to your List I will be able to finish and fly my project. Without the help of the great people on your List I doubt it would have happened. -Ed G I learn something on a too regular basis thanks to these lists! -Ralph C ..valuable service. -John F ..a well administered service. -Stewart C Great forum! -Ronald C A great service! -Andy H Been reading the lists since my first RV in 1999. Good work and as necessary to me as a rivet. -Albert G The lists are a great help. -Gary S This resource has been critical to my building success so far. -Timothy F Great system and support! -Richard P Very helpful in the building my CH 701. -Ralph S Another year of entertainment and pleasure! -Larry B A great resource for all of us. -Larry W Another year of great service! Once again, the information is worth more than I can ever contribute. Thank you also for the "community" that the List fosters. I cannot tell you the number of times that seeing an friend's name come up has caused so many awesome memories to come flooding back - along with the eager desire to gather with these great guys again. I love hearing the beginner's enthusiasm, the builder's progress, and the flyer's success... -Robert B Our list has great info and I love reading the "Flame Posts! " -Stephen M Great service! -James B Excellent source of information. -David P You provide a very valuable service to the aviation community. -David H The RV related lists have been a tremendous help in the construction of my RV-7... -Norman R Awesome list!! -John E Great bunch of guys and very knowledgeable! -Herbert G Thank you for making it so easy to stay in touch with my fellow RV-10 builders. -David J I love the list and have been a reader for a long time. -James V Continues to be a great service! -George A Awesome List server. -Deke M Many of us would never finish our airplanes without [the List]. With it, I'm getting close! -Ronald C An excellent source of both information and inspiration! -William R Forums and format are easy to use. -Jack B Great help with my kit building. -Ralph H Super service. -Richard N Still loving it. -Jared S You have a fantastic web! -Harvey R ..a great service. -James M Glad you are there... -David A I get some great information on your list. -John P Fantastic service. Couldn't have made it as far as I have without it. -Stephen T A great learning experience with my RV-6A. -Ron B Great resources! -Jason H Well done. Very valuable. -Jeffrey D Great resource for the experimental aircraft community. -Chris H This List has been one of the most helpful tools in building my RV-10, since I build alone, and do not have any help readily available. Without the List, I could not have embarked on building my RV-10. -Jim H You run a great list there. -James H Really like the Kolb List. -Don W ============================= WLAS #2 ============================ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?= <michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr>
Subject: MicroAir Radios
Date: Nov 24, 2006
Fiser ' Germany, also sells one ' much cheaper than Becker . Mich=E8le RV8 - Finishing _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D. Joe Smith Sent: mercredi 4 octobre 2006 14:07 Subject: RE: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios Bill, Thanks for the information. I am especially interested to hear that a Mode-S transponder will be available soon. The only 2-1/4 inch Mode S transponder that I know of is the Becker unit, and it would be good to see some competition in this space. Anybody Down Under working on a 406MHz ELT for experimental/general aviation? Joe D. Joe Smith Syntherica Corporation 4727 University Drive, Suite 700 Durham, NC 27707 (919) 403-3232 -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R HAMILTON Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:40 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios Folks, Slight correction, for COMs, read ICOM. Cheers, Bill Hamilton Joe, As the former Technical Director of AOPA Australia, I have considerable knowledge of their reliability, and it is good. MicroAir is also about to release a Mode S version of their transponder. I should also declare that Phil Ainsworth, President of MicroAir, is a very old friend of mine, but I don't think that taints my view. My experience of dealing with member's problems suggest that in reliability, they are second only to the small panel mount COMs, and somewhat better than several well known names, due to the relatively modern engineering and electronic design Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 01:29 AM 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 Avionics-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List - List Contribution Web Site - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/contribution 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. 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. <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List <http://forums.matronics.com> http://forums.matronics.com <http://wiki.matronics.com> http://wiki.matronics.com <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.matronics.com/contribution ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Leesafur(at)aol.com
Date: Nov 24, 2006
Subject: Re: MicroAir Radios
In a message dated 11/24/2006 9:17:55 A.M. Central Standard Time, michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr writes: Fiser =93 Germany, also sells one =93 much cheaper than Becker . Mich=C3=A8le RV8 - Finishing Do they have a web site? Lee RV-3 Fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Walter Kowatschewitsch" <Walter.Kowatschewitsch(at)gmx.net>
Subject: Re: MicroAir Radios
Date: Nov 24, 2006
FILSER http://www.filser.de/onlineshop/start.htm?transponder.htm Regards Walter ----- Original Message ----- From: Leesafur(at)aol.com To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios In a message dated 11/24/2006 9:17:55 A.M. Central Standard Time, michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr writes: Fiser =93 Germany, also sells one =93 much cheaper than Becker . Mich=C3=A8le RV8 - Finishing Do they have a web site? Lee RV-3 Fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Mich=E8le_Delsol?= <michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr>
Subject: MicroAir Radios
Date: Nov 24, 2006
Sorry ' should have been clearer ' that=92s http://www.filser.de/ Two of my fellow builders have their VHFs and are very happy with them ' Filser now proposes a really cheap (price wise) mode S transponder ' small footprint ' Their market is soaring (sail planes) however there is no reason their equipment cannot be used in motor planes ' they are Becker=92s main competitor. In France Finesse max sells lots of them (http://www.finesse-max.com/avionique/transpondeur.htm). I am personally contemplating Filser for my 8 ' Finishing stage. Mich=E8le _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Leesafur(at)aol.com Sent: vendredi 24 novembre 2006 16:36 Subject: Re: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios In a message dated 11/24/2006 9:17:55 A.M. Central Standard Time, michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr writes: Fiser ' Germany, also sells one ' much cheaper than Becker . Mich=E8le RV8 - Finishing Do they have a web site? Lee RV-3 Fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Geert Van den Acker" <gevda(at)skynet.be>
Subject: Re: MicroAir Radios
Date: Nov 24, 2006
http://www.filser.de/ geert ----- Original Message ----- From: Leesafur(at)aol.com To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 4:35 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios In a message dated 11/24/2006 9:17:55 A.M. Central Standard Time, michele.delsol(at)microsigma.fr writes: Fiser =93 Germany, also sells one =93 much cheaper than Becker . Mich=C3=A8le RV8 - Finishing Do they have a web site? Lee RV-3 Fuselage ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 25, 2006
From: Jan de Jong <jan.de.jong(at)xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: MicroAir Radios
FYI In addition to Becker and Filser there is a 3rd supplier of mode S transponders: http://www.garrecht.com/ Cheers, Jan de Jong ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Danny L. Smith" <dsmit132(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Source for a Stereo Music Jack
Date: Nov 26, 2006
Do any of you have a good source for a stereo jack for music input into my Garmin GMA-340. I plan to put it in my panel (Affordable Panel) thats about 90 thousands thick. I have looked at Radio Shack here but they dont have anything that will reach through the panel and the jack looks pretty flimsy anyway. I would appreciate any help. Danny ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 26, 2006
From: Ron DeWees <rdewees(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Terra TXN 920 pin out
Hi guys, I'm trying to wire up a small com radio for my plane to compare to my Microair 760 that seems to have distorted audio. I have been loaned a Terra TXN 920 Nav Com unit. It looks like I could split the Com and use it by itself as a small Com radio since it's in a separate chassis from the Nav side of the radio. Does anyone have the pin out for the Com side? I would like to wire it up and take it flying to see if I have unusual ignition noise or a radio problem in the Microair. Thanks Ron in Atlanta. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "James Redmon" <james(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Terra TXN 920 pin out
Date: Nov 26, 2006
It's not likely noise from your ignition... Distorted audio is a common problem with the Microair 760 radios - mine included. Send it in (yep, back to Aussie-land) for repair to have it fixed with a later reversion. They USED to post their revision issues on their website, but not any longer - at least that I can find. Garbled audio was one of the first issues listed. I seem to remember that it stemmed from a capacitor that was originally installed backward - but I might have that mixed with another issue. Honestly, I used to be a big Microair believer...but from what I have experienced, seen and heard of in the last year...I would not recommend those products any longer. Before you get too far down the rabbit hole, you might want to get that radio checked out or refitted. Good luck, James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron DeWees" <rdewees(at)mindspring.com> Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 9:40 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Terra TXN 920 pin out > > Hi guys, I'm trying to wire up a small com radio for my plane to compare > to my Microair 760 that seems to have distorted audio. I have been > loaned a Terra TXN 920 Nav Com unit. It looks like I could split the Com > and use it by itself as a small Com radio since it's in a separate chassis > from the Nav side of the radio. Does anyone have the pin out for the Com > side? I would like to wire it up and take it flying to see if I have > unusual ignition noise or a radio problem in the Microair. > Thanks > > Ron in Atlanta. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: List of Contributors Coming Soon - Make Sure You're Listed!
Dear Listers, The List of Contributors (LOC) is just around the corner! On December 1st I post a list of everyone that so generously made a Contribution to support the Lists. Its my way of publicly thanking everyone that took a minute to show their appreciation for the Lists. As a number of people have pointed out in their Contribution comments, the List seems at least as valuable of a building/flying/recreating tool as a typical your magazine subscription! And how interactive is a magazine, after all? :-) Won't you take minute and assure that your name is on the upcoming LOC? Tell others that you appreciate the Lists. Making a Contribution to support the Lists is fast and easy using your Visa, MasterCard, or Paypal account: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by droping a personal check in the mail to: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 USA (Please include your email address on the check!) I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution thus far during this year's List Fund Raiser! Remember that its YOUR support that keeps these Lists running and improving! Don't forget to include a little comment about how the Lists have helped you! Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2006
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: MicroAir Radios
Joe, Re. 406 ELT, yes, but AOPA forced through changes to local regulations to allow portables, the failure rate of fixed ELT, in real world accidents, is greater than 95%, and the supposed "greater reliability, fewer false activations of 406 " has NOT been achieved in practice. Indeed, the 406 system is VERY susceptible to false alarms from, would you believe, common microwave ovens. Have a look for a website for GME Electrophone. http://www.gme.net.au/epirb/index.php You are stuck with silly regulations mandating equipment that only works on the rarest of occasions, so spend as little as possible, and have the best pocket 406 ELT/EPIRB/PLB on your person, in a pocket, lanyard attached, whatever, so that where you goes, it goes. Not in your flight bag, not in a seat pocket, in your pocket. The failure rates are from AOPA Australia records, they were validated from a post implementation review of our national legislation several years ago, (bureaucrats wanted to "comply with ICAO") and your Civil Air Patrol also has figures to show how high the failure rate is, in a real accident. There is no magic, in most accident sequences, the aerial or aerial cable is wrecked, and 100% of ELT's don't work under water. The failure rates are just as bad in airline accidents. Remember that the US rules were a political kneejerk reaction to the loss of a high profile politician in Alaska, like most politically inspired reactions, it has produced barely measurable results for a multi-(probably by now) billion $$$ cost. Across a small fleet in Australia, we saved about $22M AUD in NOT fitting fixed ELT, but requiring a portable for every trip over 50nm. In survivable accidents, there has been a nil failure rate of activated portables. If the same amount of money had been spent on pilot training ???? Cheers, Bill Hamilton (Past President, AOPA of Australia) At 02:16 AM 25/11/2006, you wrote: >Fiser ' Germany, also sells one ' much cheaper than Becker . > >Mich=E8le >RV8 - Finishing > > >From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D. Joe Smith >Sent: mercredi 4 octobre 2006 14:07 >To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: RE: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios > >Bill, > >Thanks for the information. I am especially >interested to hear that a Mode-S transponder >will be available soon. The only 2-1/4 inch >Mode S transponder that I know of is the Becker >unit, and it would be good to see some competition in this space. > >Anybody Down Under working on a 406MHz ELT for experimental/general aviation? > >Joe > >D. Joe Smith >Syntherica Corporation >4727 University Drive, Suite 700 >Durham, NC 27707 >(919) 403-3232 > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R HAMILTON >Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:40 PM >To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com >Subject: Re: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios > >Folks, >Slight correction, for COMs, read ICOM. >Cheers, >Bill Hamilton > > >Joe, >As the former Technical Director of AOPA >Australia, I have considerable knowledge of their reliability, and it is good. >MicroAir is also about to release a Mode S version of their transponder. >I should also declare that Phil Ainsworth, >President of MicroAir, is a very old friend of >mine, but I don't think that taints my view. >My experience of dealing with member's problems >suggest that in reliability, they are second >only to the small panel mount COMs, and somewhat >better than several well known names, due to the >relatively modern engineering and electronic design >Cheers, >Bill Hamilton > > >At 01:29 AM 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 > > >Avionics-List Email Forum - > >http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List >- List Contribution Web Site - >-Matt Dralle, List Admin. >http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > >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. > > >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. > > ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List>http://www.matronics.com/ Navigator?Avionics-List >http://forums.matronics.com ><http://wiki.matronics.com>http://wiki.matronics.com >http://www.matronics.com/contribution > > >http://www.matronics.com/contribution >www.aeroelectric.com ><http://www.buildersbooks.com>www.buildersbooks.com <http://www.homebuilthelp.com>www.homebuilthelp.com ><http://www.matronics.com/contribution>http://www.matronics.com/contributio n ><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List>http://www.matronics.com/ Navigator?Avionics-List > 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 27, 2006
From: Charlie England <ceengland(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Source for a Stereo Music Jack
Danny L. Smith wrote: > Do any of you have a good source for a stereo jack for music input > into my Garmin GMA-340. I plan to put it in my panel (Affordable > Panel) thats about 90 thousands thick. I have looked at Radio Shack > here but they dont have anything that will reach through the panel > and the jack looks pretty flimsy anyway. > > I would appreciate any help. > > Danny > Others have suggested sources for jacks. If you don't have any luck finding a jack with a longer reach, you could 1. mill the back side of the panel around the mounting hole (doable with a drill press & end mill, if you take your time) or 2. drill the panel large enough to clear whatever plug you intend to use & rivet a thin doubler behind it, drilled for the jack Charlie ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Source for a Stereo Music Jack
Date: Nov 27, 2006
Look around your block.... When you find a house with a small forest of antennas where the back yard used to be you have probably found an Amateur radio enthusiast.... ( ham) He/She will probably fix you up with the right jack and help with the soldering etc. Most hams have a pretty good electronics background so he may be of help with things like fuel senders and general wiring practices. Better than that it probably won't take too much talking to get them interested! The opportunity of taking a picture of their personal forest from 1000' would also sweeten the deal. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Charlie England > Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 9:49 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Source for a Stereo Music Jack > > > > > Danny L. Smith wrote: > > > Do any of you have a good source for a stereo jack for music input > > into my Garmin GMA-340. I plan to put it in my panel (Affordable > > Panel) that's about 90 thousands thick. I have looked at > Radio Shack > > here but they don't have anything that will reach through the panel > > and the jack looks pretty flimsy anyway. > > > > I would appreciate any help. > > > > Danny > > > > Others have suggested sources for jacks. If you don't have any luck > finding a jack with a longer reach, you could > 1. mill the back side of the panel around the mounting hole > (doable with > a drill press & end mill, if you take your time) > or > 2. drill the panel large enough to clear whatever plug you > intend to use > & rivet a thin doubler behind it, drilled for the jack > > Charlie > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Who is "Matt Dralle" & What Are "The Lists"? [Please Read]
Dear Listers, Who is Matt Dralle and what exactly are these Lists? Well, I've been working in the information technology industry for over 20 years primarily in computer networking design and implementation. I have also done extensive work in web development and CGI design during this period. I started the Matronics Email Lists back in 1990 with about 30 fellow RV builders from around the world. Since that time, I have added 63 other kinds of aircraft related Lists to the line up and numerous other List related services such as the Forums, Wiki, Archives and Search Engine just to name a few. For flexibility and reliability, I have chosen to run all of my own servers here locally. Other List-related systems include a 1 Gigabit, fully switched network infrastructure, a commercial-grade Netscreen firewall, a Barracuda spam filter, a local T1 Internet router, and a commercial-grade business T1 Internet connection with full static addressing. The computer servers found here include a brand new, quad-processor Xeon Linux server for List web services, a dual-processor Xeon Linux system dedicated to the email processing List functions, and another P4 Linux system serving as a remote storage disk farm for the archives, databases, and for an on-line hard drive-based backup system with 3.2 Terra Bytes of storage, soon to be upgraded to over 6 Terra Bytes! This entire system is protected by three large, commercial-grade uninterrupted power supply (UPS) systems that assure the Lists are available even during a local power outage! Speaking of power, imagine how much electricity it takes to run all of these systems. One month this Summer, I had a staggering $1368 bill for electricity alone! I recently upgraded all of the computer racking infrastructure including new power feeds and dedicated air conditioning for the room that serves as the Computer Center for the Matronics Email Lists. This year I added another rack to house the new MONSTER quad-processor web system that didn't quite fit into the first rack! Here's a composite photo of the List Computer Center before the addition of the second rack: http://www.matronics.com/MattDralle-ListComputerCenter.jpg As you can see, I take running these Lists very seriously and I am dedicated to providing an always-on, 24x7x365 experience for each and every Lister. But building and running this system isn't cheap. As I've stated before, I don't support any of these systems with commercial advertising on the Lists. It is supported 100% through List member Contributions! That means you... and you... and YOU! To that end, I hold a List Fund Raiser each November and ask that members make a small Contribution to support the continued operation and upgrade of this ever-expanding system. Its solely YOUR Contributions that keeps it running! Please make a Contribution today to support these Lists! http://www.matronics.com/contribution Or, by dropping a personal check in the mail to: Matronics / Matt Dralle PO Box 347 Livermore CA 94551-0347 USA (Please include your email address on the check!) Thank you! Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 28, 2006
From: "D. Joe Smith" <jsmith(at)syntherica.com>
Subject: MicroAir Radios
Bill, Thanks again for your timely advice. Your approach is a good one. I have a portable 406 EPIRB for my boat, which I could certainly take with me when I fly. I think I will go for the cheapest method of compliance and deal with the real safety issue separately. Joe D. Joe Smith, CEO Syntherica Corporation 4727 University Drive, Suite 700 Durham, NC 27707 (919) 403-3232; (919) 403-3685 (fax) -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R HAMILTON Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 3:49 AM Subject: RE: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios Joe, Re. 406 ELT, yes, but AOPA forced through changes to local regulations to allow portables, the failure rate of fixed ELT, in real world accidents, is greater than 95%, and the supposed "greater reliability, fewer false activations of 406 " has NOT been achieved in practice. Indeed, the 406 system is VERY susceptible to false alarms from, would you believe, common microwave ovens. Have a look for a website for GME Electrophone. http://www.gme.net.au/epirb/index.php You are stuck with silly regulations mandating equipment that only works on the rarest of occasions, so spend as little as possible, and have the best pocket 406 ELT/EPIRB/PLB on your person, in a pocket, lanyard attached, whatever, so that where you goes, it goes. Not in your flight bag, not in a seat pocket, in your pocket. The failure rates are from AOPA Australia records, they were validated from a post implementation review of our national legislation several years ago, (bureaucrats wanted to "comply with ICAO") and your Civil Air Patrol also has figures to show how high the failure rate is, in a real accident. There is no magic, in most accident sequences, the aerial or aerial cable is wrecked, and 100% of ELT's don't work under water. The failure rates are just as bad in airline accidents. Remember that the US rules were a political kneejerk reaction to the loss of a high profile politician in Alaska, like most politically inspired reactions, it has produced barely measurable results for a multi-(probably by now) billion $$$ cost. Across a small fleet in Australia, we saved about $22M AUD in NOT fitting fixed ELT, but requiring a portable for every trip over 50nm. In survivable accidents, there has been a nil failure rate of activated portables. If the same amount of money had been spent on pilot training ???? Cheers, Bill Hamilton (Past President, AOPA of Australia) At 02:16 AM 25/11/2006, you wrote: Fiser ' Germany, also sells one ' much cheaper than Becker . Mich=E8le RV8 - Finishing From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [ mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of D. Joe Smith Sent: mercredi 4 octobre 2006 14:07 Subject: RE: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios Bill, Thanks for the information. I am especially interested to hear that a Mode-S transponder will be available soon. The only 2-1/4 inch Mode S transponder that I know of is the Becker unit, and it would be good to see some competition in this space. Anybody Down Under working on a 406MHz ELT for experimental/general aviation? Joe D. Joe Smith Syntherica Corporation 4727 University Drive, Suite 700 Durham, NC 27707 (919) 403-3232 -----Original Message----- From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [ mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of W J R HAMILTON Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:40 PM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: MicroAir Radios Folks, Slight correction, for COMs, read ICOM. Cheers, Bill Hamilton Joe, As the former Technical Director of AOPA Australia, I have considerable knowledge of their reliability, and it is good. MicroAir is also about to release a Mode S version of their transponder. I should also declare that Phil Ainsworth, President of MicroAir, is a very old friend of mine, but I don't think that taints my view. My experience of dealing with member's problems suggest that in reliability, they are second only to the small panel mount COMs, and somewhat better than several well known names, due to the relatively modern engineering and electronic design Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 01:29 AM 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 Avionics-List Email Forum - http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List - List Contribution Web Site - -Matt Dralle, List Admin. http://www.matronics.com/contribution 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. 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. <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List <http://forums.matronics.com/> http://forums.matronics.com http://wiki.matronics.com <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.matronics.com/contribution <http://www.aeroelectric.com/> www.aeroelectric.com <http://www.aeroelectric.com/> www.buildersbooks.com www.kitlog.com www.homebuilthelp.com <http://www.matronics.com/contribution> http://www.matronics.com/contribution ; -Matt Dralle, List Admin. Avionics-List Email Forum - <http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Nov 30, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Last "Official" Day Of The List Fund Raiser!
Dear Listers, Well, its November 30th and that means three things... 1) Today I am now officially 43 years old... (arg...) 2) It marks that last "official" day of the List Fund Raiser! 3) Its the last day I will be bugging everyone for a whole year! :-) If you use the Lists and enjoy the content and the no-advertising, no-spam, and no-censorship way in which they're run, please make a Contribution today to support their continued operation and upkeep. Your $20 or $30 goes a long way to further the List operation and keep the bills paid. I will be posting the List of Contributors next week, so make sure your name is on it! :-) Thank you to everyone that has made a Contribution so far this year! It is greatly appreciated. List Contributions: http://www.matronics.com/contribution Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2006
From: "Bob" <rfg842(at)cox.net>
Subject: Connectors
Can anyone tell me the manufacturer and source of the red and black plast ic connectors that are used in the RST kits. There are no markings on the connectors nor identification in the parts lists or manuals. I would like to purchase more male and female pins but RST doesn't answer my email for assistance. Have checked with Radio Shack and a couple of electronic shops. No one could match the pins used. Thanks Bob, Wichita ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 03, 2006
From: Jim Blake <jblake43(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Connectors
Bob, the RST connectors are .062 pin Molex connectors. They all come as that off white color. Put them in Ritz die, make them any color you like. Jim ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 07, 2006
From: "Bob" <rfg842(at)cox.net>
Subject: Molex connectors
Jim Blake Thanks to you I found the .062 Molex pins at Allied. They arrive today a nd matched perfectly. Now I can continue with the project. Merry Christmas! Bob, Wichita ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 08, 2006
From: Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Matronics Fund Raiser - 2006 List of Contributors
Dear Listers, I would like to thank everyone that made a Contribution in support of the Lists this year! It was really nice to hear all great comments people had regarding the Lists! As I have said many times before, running these Lists is a labor of love. Your generosity during the List Fund Raiser only underscores the great sentiments people have made regarding the Lists. If you haven't yet made a Contribution in support of this year's Fund Raiser please feel free to do so. The nice List gifts will be available on the site for just a little while longer, so hurry and make your Contribution and get your great gift. Once again, the URL for the Contribution web site is: http://www.matronics.com/contribution I would like to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com ), Paul Besing of Aeroware Enterprises ( http://www.kitlog.com ), Jon Croke of Homebuilt HELP ( http://www.homebuilthelp.com ) and Bob Nuckolls of AeroElectric ( http://www.aeroelectric.com ) for their extremely generous support during this year's Fund Raiser through the contribution of merchandise. These are great guys that support the aviation industry and I encourage each and every Lister to have a look at their products. Thank you Andy, Paul, Jon and Bob!! Your support is very much appreciated! And finally, below you will find a web link to the 2006 List of Contributors current as of 12/7/06! Have a look at this list of names as these are the people that make all of these List services possible! I can't thank each of you enough for your support and great feedback during this year's Fund Raiser! THANK YOU! http://www.matronics.com/loc/2006.html I will be shipping out all of the gifts in the next few weeks and hope to have everything out by the end of the month. In most cases, gifts will be shipped via US Postal Service. Kitlog Pro serial numbers should go out via email this weekend. Once again, thank you for making this year's List Fund Raiser successful! Best regards, Matt Dralle Matronics Email List Administrator ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 10, 2006
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Beusch?= <andre.beusch(at)bluewin.ch>
Subject: Garmin GNS430 Nav board repaired twice
I have a Garmin GNS430 in my Glasair Super II. The comm is connected to a dipole antenna in the vertical stabilizer, the nav is connected directly (no splitter) to the dipole antenna in the horizontal stabilizer. Both are the antennas that were provided by Stoddard Hamilton, the kit manufacturer, and were installed as per the instruction manual. The antennas perform well. Both times, the VOR/LOC lost 30 dB of sensitivity, apparently the input stage was destroyed. The first repair cost me about $1000, the second was warranty. I wonder if someone had this problem with any kind of nav receiver. Garmin said that it could have been overloaded by the comm transmission because the antennas are to close to each other. (they don't say anything about this in the installation manual) Many people use a splitter for NAV/glideslope, so their receiver gets less signal and would perhaps not be exposed to this problem. As an electronics engineer, I'd like to understand this and will make a measurement of the power that actually gets in the Nav receiver. I have a 250 MHz oscilloscope for that. This nav receiver should pass RTCA DO-196, if someone has these documents handy, I'd be interested to see what the damage input power should be. I also consider putting a 6dB attenuator or an RF limitter on the Nav antenna input. Any opinions? Thanks, --Andre Beusch ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Garmin GNS430 Nav board repaired twice
Date: Dec 11, 2006
Bite the bullet Andre and change the position of the Nav antenna. John From: "Andr Beusch" > > I have a Garmin GNS430 in my Glasair Super II. > The comm is connected to a dipole antenna in the vertical stabilizer, the > nav is connected directly (no splitter) to the dipole antenna in the > horizontal stabilizer. > Both are the antennas that were provided by Stoddard Hamilton, the kit > manufacturer, and were installed as per the instruction manual. The > antennas perform well. Both times, the VOR/LOC lost 30 dB of sensitivity, > apparently the input stage was destroyed. > The first repair cost me about $1000, the second was warranty. > I wonder if someone had this problem with any kind of nav receiver. > Garmin said that it could have been overloaded by the comm transmission > because the antennas are to close to each other. > (they don't say anything about this in the installation manual) > Many people use a splitter for NAV/glideslope, so their receiver gets > less signal and would perhaps not be exposed to this problem. > As an electronics engineer, I'd like to understand this and will make a > measurement of the power that actually gets in the Nav receiver. I have a > 250 MHz oscilloscope for that. > This nav receiver should pass RTCA DO-196, if someone has these documents > handy, I'd be interested to see what the damage input power should be. > I also consider putting a 6dB attenuator or an RF limitter on the Nav > antenna input. > > Any opinions? > > > Thanks, --Andre Beusch ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Garmin GNS430 Nav board repaired twice
Date: Dec 12, 2006
Hi, FWIW, there's a section in the GNS 530 manual about the location of the comm antenna because of it's power output. It transmits at 16W. Perhaps you can have a look at a updated manual for the 430. Marcel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andr Beusch" <andre.beusch(at)bluewin.ch> Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 9:44 PM Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin GNS430 Nav board repaired twice > > > I have a Garmin GNS430 in my Glasair Super II. > The comm is connected to a dipole antenna in the vertical stabilizer, the > nav is connected directly (no splitter) to the dipole antenna in the > horizontal stabilizer. > Both are the antennas that were provided by Stoddard Hamilton, the kit > manufacturer, and were installed as per the instruction manual. The > antennas perform well. Both times, the VOR/LOC lost 30 dB of sensitivity, > apparently the input stage was destroyed. > The first repair cost me about $1000, the second was warranty. > I wonder if someone had this problem with any kind of nav receiver. > Garmin said that it could have been overloaded by the comm transmission > because the antennas are to close to each other. > (they don't say anything about this in the installation manual) > Many people use a splitter for NAV/glideslope, so their receiver gets > less signal and would perhaps not be exposed to this problem. > As an electronics engineer, I'd like to understand this and will make a > measurement of the power that actually gets in the Nav receiver. I have a > 250 MHz oscilloscope for that. > This nav receiver should pass RTCA DO-196, if someone has these documents > handy, I'd be interested to see what the damage input power should be. > I also consider putting a 6dB attenuator or an RF limitter on the Nav > antenna input. > > Any opinions? > > > Thanks, --Andre Beusch > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Garmin GNS430 Nav board repaired twice
Date: Dec 12, 2006
12/12/2006 Hello Andre, I am trying to better understand your antenna connections. You wrote: "The comm is connected to a dipole antenna in the vertical stabilizer, the nav is connected directly (no splitter) to the dipole antenna in the horizontal stabilizer." The GNS 430 box has two separate inputs for VHF nav and glide slope. As you say this is frequently done by using one VHF nav antenna and then splitting that input just before it enters the GNS 430 box. When you say that your nav is connected directly (no splitter) to the antenna does that mean that you are also feeding the glide slope input directly from some separate glide slope antenna? What is the status of the unit now? You have it back repaired and are not using it for concern over damaging it again with comm transmissions or ---? Comant industries has a wide array of couplers that you might consider using to combine and or split inputs to your GNS 430 from nav / glide slope antennas in order to protect the input stages from excessive comm transmission inputs. http://www.comant.com/home.cgi?ua=sgroup&crit=Couplers/Diplexers/Combiners OC > From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andr=E9_Beusch?= <andre.beusch(at)bluewin.ch> > Subject: Avionics-List: Garmin GNS430 Nav board repaired twice > > > I have a Garmin GNS430 in my Glasair Super II. > The comm is connected to a dipole antenna in the vertical stabilizer, > the nav is connected directly (no splitter) to the dipole antenna in the > horizontal stabilizer. > Both are the antennas that were provided by Stoddard Hamilton, the kit > manufacturer, and were installed as per the instruction manual. The > antennas perform well. > Both times, the VOR/LOC lost 30 dB of sensitivity, apparently the input > stage was destroyed. > The first repair cost me about $1000, the second was warranty. > I wonder if someone had this problem with any kind of nav receiver. > Garmin said that it could have been overloaded by the comm transmission > because the antennas are to close to each other. > (they don't say anything about this in the installation manual) > Many people use a splitter for NAV/glideslope, so their receiver gets > less signal and would perhaps not be exposed to this problem. > As an electronics engineer, I'd like to understand this and will make a > measurement of the power that actually gets in the Nav receiver. I have > a 250 MHz oscilloscope for that. > This nav receiver should pass RTCA DO-196, if someone has these > documents handy, I'd be interested to see what the damage input power > should be. > I also consider putting a 6dB attenuator or an RF limitter on the Nav > antenna input. > > Any opinions? > > > Thanks, --Andre Beusch ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 12, 2006
From: =?windows-1252?Q?Andr=E9_Beusch?= <andre.beusch(at)bluewin.ch>
Subject: Re: Garmin GNS430 Nav board repaired twice
> > When you say that your nav is connected directly (no splitter) to the > antenna does that mean that you are also feeding the glide slope input > directly from some separate glide slope antenna? Yes, one antenna for VOR in the horizontal stabilizer, and one for the GS, on the floor behind the baggage compartment. > > What is the status of the unit now? You have it back repaired and are > not using it for concern over damaging it again with comm > transmissions or ---? I have disconnected the VOR antenna. I will install either a 6 dB attenuator or an rf limiter and hope it will not happen again. > > I have now measured the voltage across a 50 Ohms terminator at the VOR antenna connector when transmitting with the GNS430 com (no modulation). The maximum measured voltage in the com frequency range was about 3.5 Vpp (at 123 MHz), which equals to 1.24 Vrms. That is 14.9 dBm, at 50 Ohms a power of 31mW. The peak power at 70 % modulation would be 87 mW. (19.4 dBm) I don't know the spec of the GNS430 nav receiver, but IMO, this level should not be destructive. --Andre ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Garmin GNS430 Nav board repaired twice
Date: Dec 12, 2006
Andre, Remembering that transistors can be destroyed in microseconds with overvoltages you should be thinking in terms of peak rather than RMS voltages. Moreover measuring the voltge using a 50 ohm termination neglects the most likely possibility that there is a standing wave on that line and the termination looking into the NAV receiver is nothing like 50 ohms at the comms frequency. I repeat, change the antenna position; it should be easy enough with a plastic aeroplane. Unless of course you want to make a case against Garmin and recover your outrageous repair bill. John From: "Andr Beusch" > > > >> >> When you say that your nav is connected directly (no splitter) to the >> antenna does that mean that you are also feeding the glide slope input >> directly from some separate glide slope antenna? > > > Yes, one antenna for VOR in the horizontal stabilizer, and one for the GS, > on the floor behind the > baggage compartment. > >> >> What is the status of the unit now? You have it back repaired and are not >> using it for concern over damaging it again with comm transmissions >> or ---? > > > I have disconnected the VOR antenna. I will install either a 6 dB > attenuator or an rf limiter and hope it will not happen again. > >> >> > I have now measured the voltage across a 50 Ohms terminator at the VOR > antenna connector when transmitting with the GNS430 com (no modulation). > > The maximum measured voltage in the com frequency range was about 3.5 Vpp > (at 123 MHz), which equals to 1.24 Vrms. > That is 14.9 dBm, at 50 Ohms a power of 31mW. > The peak power at 70 % modulation would be 87 mW. (19.4 dBm) > > I don't know the spec of the GNS430 nav receiver, but IMO, this level > should not be destructive. > > --Andre ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: GPS Skyforce IIIC and Trutrak Digi Flight II
From: "Hans-Dieter Aue" <Hans.Dieter.Aue(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2006
Hi group, I have an GPS Skyforce IIIC produced in 1999 with current software update. The GPS worked fine so far and I would like to connect it to a TT Digi Flight II in my RV10. Have anyone experiences with that combination? The Skyforce can speak both NMEA-0183 format (4800 baud, 8 data bit, 1 stop bit, no parity) and AR-NAV-Data format (9600 baud, 8 data bit, 1 stop bit, no parity) on the serial output. In case of NMEA-format the sentences RMC, GGA and RMB are send out. I can show the sentence struture if it helps. Can anyone light me up if this pair works together and if I am able to fly programmed flightplans on the Skyforce. All input appreciated. Hans-Dieter -------- Hans-Dieter Aue N110GH 40424 Finish kit Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=82715#82715 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Dec 20, 2006
From: Jim Streit <wooody04(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: GPS Skyforce IIIC and Trutrak Digi Flight II
Hans, Why don't you contact True Trak. They certainly be able to tell you yes or no and how to hook it up. Jim Streit Hans-Dieter Aue wrote: > > Hi group, > > I have an GPS Skyforce IIIC produced in 1999 with current software update. The GPS worked fine so far and I would like to connect it to a TT Digi Flight II in my RV10. > > Have anyone experiences with that combination? > > The Skyforce can speak both NMEA-0183 format (4800 baud, 8 data bit, 1 stop bit, no parity) and AR-NAV-Data format (9600 baud, 8 data bit, 1 stop bit, no parity) on the serial output. > > In case of NMEA-format the sentences RMC, GGA and RMB are send out. I can show the sentence struture if it helps. > > Can anyone light me up if this pair works together and if I am able to fly programmed flightplans on the Skyforce. All input appreciated. > > Hans-Dieter > > -------- > Hans-Dieter Aue > N110GH > 40424 > Finish kit > > > Read this topic online here: > > http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=82715#82715 > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: GPS Skyforce IIIC and Trutrak Digi Flight II
Date: Dec 20, 2006
Hi All- I've a friend with a problem (no, really...). He has an ICS Plus nav/com that had been marketed by Wag Aero at one time. It is now malfunctioning, and he would like to try to get it serviced. So far he's had no luck, either through Wag or the Internet. Although not exquisitely intuitive to use, it does have a lot of pretty neat and useful features, and I don't blame him for trying to get it fixed. Does anyone on the list have any (constructive) suggestions? glen matejcek aerobubba(at)earthlink.net ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "glen matejcek" <aerobubba(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: FW: ICS Plus nav/com
Date: Dec 20, 2006
> Hi All- > > (this one has the correct subject line) > > I've a friend with a problem (no, really...). He has an ICS Plus nav/com that had been marketed by Wag Aero at one time. It is now malfunctioning, and he would like to try to get it serviced. So far he's had no luck, either through Wag or the Internet. Although not exquisitely intuitive to use, it does have a lot of pretty neat and useful features, and I don't blame him for trying to get it fixed. > Does anyone on the list have any (constructive) suggestions? > glen matejcek > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net > > glen matejcek > aerobubba(at)earthlink.net > ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: GPS Skyforce IIIC and Trutrak Digi Flight II
From: "Hans-Dieter Aue" <Hans.Dieter.Aue(at)gmail.com>
Date: Dec 20, 2006
Jim, I would had do so, but I can't believe that TruTrak will test all the (older) GPS in the world with there products. So I thought I ask anybody who probabley figured this out. I would also be glad to hear any experiences on that matter. Hans-Dieter -------- Hans-Dieter Aue N110GH 40424 Finish kit Read this topic online here: http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=82742#82742 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Rees" <peter.rees01(at)tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: GPS Skyforce IIIC and Trutrak Digi Flight II
Date: Dec 20, 2006
Hans If the unit you're referring to was made by Bendix King - the IIIc that is installed in an avionics tray and was called the CM-2000, I had the following observations when connecting it to our Trio EZpilot. I believe that the baud rate specified by the NEMA protocol should be 4800 but the CM-2000 is set to 9600 baud and cannot be changed - its quite possible that the autopilot you want to connect to may be configured to support this but you'd need to check with the manufacturers. There are a few other problem with the CM-2000. Apparently , the GPRMB string is missing from the NEMA stream. Also: 1. the track error field has provision for track error up to 999.99 miles. The other units have 99.99. 2. the magnetic variation field has provision for up to 359.99 degrees of variation. The other units were limited to 59.99 These differences may well confuse the string processing of your autopilot if its not able to adapt to the differences from the NEMA spec. I guess the answer is to either contact the manufacturer and ask them to either affirm that their unit will definitely work with your GPS (or that they will modify it to), get a newer GPS (the CM-2000 is a good, colour unit and I'd hold onto it if I were you) or get an autopilot from TRIO whose unit definitely works very well indeed with the CM-2000. regards Peter ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Date: Jan 03, 2007
1/3/2007 Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you. You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not?" I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft)) must also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board." Here is why I do not agree with that statement: A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAAs TSO C146a Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)." B) "Garmins GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAAs highest level of certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance similar to Instrument Landing System (ILS) operations without the need for ground-based navaids of any kind." C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAAs WAAS regulations may be used for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route through precision approach at airports." These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see copy below. D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin says in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description of the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and a WMS (WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground. Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly don't intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. Obviously when flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer and glideslope equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published approach that requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on board and functioning. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. ------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS -------------- November 9, 2006 Garmin Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W series OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire Garmin International, a unit of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of a major aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAAs TSO C146a Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved model list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed on over 980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins the G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft. Garmin currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider. "This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary Kelley, Garmins vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA commissioned WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified equipment in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 Garmin GNS 400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to WAAS. We expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, and pilots will be able to operate to and from airports that would otherwise be unavailable to them in marginal weather." Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmins popular GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade their products to meet the FAAs WAAS standards* without a field approval**. These upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map redraws, fully coupled and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, and increased XM weather content. Pilots will also experience significantly enhanced functionality because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, LNAV+V, and LNAV approach capabilities. Garmins GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAAs highest level of certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based navaids for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance similar to Instrument Landing System (ILS) operations without the need for ground-based navaids of any kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets pilots fly the FAAs new LPV approaches. The FAA has already published over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS approach procedures. The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAAs WAAS regulations may be used for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en route through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, pilots will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be able to navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument flight rules. Garmins panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly three-fourths of all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the avionics industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmins GNS 480 was the first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a Gamma-3 certification. Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430W and GNS 530W to begin in about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS 530W units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers. *Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, Garmins GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary means" of GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. Garmin expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 issuing the software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data loader card. This required software update is expected to be available in the first quarter of 2007. **The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for a large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness approval will be required. ------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: 91.205 > OC: > > Happy New Year to you! > > Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more than > once > that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used." > > Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard > certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs > and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board > when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not? > > I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the only > answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav > capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type > certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of > certifying > the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So the > FAA > makes us use their nav system. > > How close am I? > > =================== > L. Wayne Hicks > Senior Engineer > Zel Technologies, LLC > 757-325-1282 phone > wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com > http://www.zeltech.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Date: Jan 04, 2007
Hi, apologies for butting in on this. We have a RV10 with full Garmin stack and have had quite some difficulty getting pin outs and ended up sending the units to an avionics shop to get wired. (we purchased without looms) I have since spoken to the main Garmin agent in the UK and he explained that due to complexity of the avionics Garmin does not encourage(read does not make available pinout)homebuilders to do their own wiring. This can well be where the snag is in this story. You buy Garmin with a manufactored loom which is tested for proper function and there's a degree of assured quality. This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of being able to certify for IFR operation in your experimental. It may also be a good idea to print a copy of 91.205 to hand over to your DAR if he doesn't sign willingly! :-) Marcel ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:56 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) > > 1/3/2007 > > Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you. > > You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built plane > cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional > VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. > They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board > appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you think > experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated aircraft > (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs > and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board > when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not?" > > I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental > Aircraft)) must > also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board." > > Here is why I do not agree with that statement: > > A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAAs TSO C146a Gamma-3 > certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with Vertical > (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the Wide Area > Augmentation System (WAAS)." > > B) "Garmins GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAAs highest level of > certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based > navaids for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance similar to > Instrument Landing System (ILS) operations without the need for > ground-based navaids of any kind." > > C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of > the GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAAs WAAS regulations may > be used for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including > en route through precision approach at airports." > > These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see > copy below. > > D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin says > in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a description of > the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference Stations) and a > WMS (WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on the ground. > > Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF > navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating > Limitations which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) > when operating IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that > aircraft would be in compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires > "navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." > > I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly > don't intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. > Obviously when flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer > and glideslope equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published > approach that requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be on > board and functioning. > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > > > ------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS -------------- > November 9, 2006 > Garmin Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W series > OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire Garmin International, a unit > of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of a major > aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) > Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAAs TSO > C146a Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision > with Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the > Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also granted AML (approved > model list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W equipment to be installed > on over 980 popular makes and models of aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series > joins the G1000 and GNS 480 in providing WAAS enabled navigation for > aircraft. Garmin currently offers more WAAS solutions than any other > avionics provider. > "This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary > Kelley, Garmins vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA commissioned > WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified > equipment in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 > Garmin GNS 400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to > WAAS. We expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, > and pilots will be able to operate to and from airports that would > otherwise be unavailable to them in marginal weather." > Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmins > popular GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade > their products to meet the FAAs WAAS standards* without a field > approval**. These upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map > redraws, fully coupled and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, > and increased XM weather content. Pilots will also experience > significantly enhanced functionality because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, > LNAV+V, and LNAV approach capabilities. > Garmins GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAAs highest level of > certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based > navaids for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance similar to > Instrument Landing System (ILS) operations without the need for > ground-based navaids of any kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets > pilots fly the FAAs new LPV approaches. The FAA has already published > over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS approach procedures. > The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the > GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAAs WAAS regulations may be > used for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en > route through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, > pilots will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be > able to navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument > flight rules. > Garmins panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly three-fourths > of all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft retrofitted > since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar in the > avionics industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmins GNS > 480 was the first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a > Gamma-3 certification. > Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430W and GNS 530W to begin in > about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are > available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not > currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of > upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS > 530W units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com for > additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin dealers. > *Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, Garmins > GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a "primary means" > of GPS navigation until after customers install a new software version. > Garmin expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first quarter of 2007 > issuing the software. The software will be updated via the 400/500W data > loader card. This required software update is expected to be available in > the first quarter of 2007. > **The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for a > large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not > pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness > approval will be required. > > ------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------ > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com> > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM > Subject: 91.205 > > >> OC: >> >> Happy New Year to you! >> >> Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more than >> once >> that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must >> also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. >> They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board >> appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used." >> >> Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard >> certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS >> GPSs >> and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board >> when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not? >> >> I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the only >> answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav >> capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type >> certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of >> certifying >> the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So the >> FAA >> makes us use their nav system. >> >> How close am I? >> >> =================== >> L. Wayne Hicks >> Senior Engineer >> Zel Technologies, LLC >> 757-325-1282 phone >> wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com >> http://www.zeltech.com > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Date: Jan 04, 2007
01/04/2007 Hello Wayne, Thanks for your quick response. I wrote: " Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating Limitations which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) when operating IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that aircraft would be in compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires "navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." And you wrote: "I wish we could somehow train the DAR and ABEA communities to accept this." I don't agree with the concept of required acceptance by a DAR or FAA inspector during an initial airworthiness inspection of an ABEA's (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft's) avionics suite configuration and eventual use of that ABEA in IFR flight . The inspector is not in a position to pass judgement on such future IFR employment of the aircraft or enforce equipment provisions for that future employment. Instead the inspector places such judgement and future responsibility for compliance with FAR's and the AIM equipment requirements on the builder / pilot by the wording of that ABEA's Operating Limitations. To whit: After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only. I suppose it is possible that an FAA ramp inspector after an IFR flight, or an investigation after an incident, could conclude that an ABEA equipped with only 146 TSO'd compliant WAAS equipment was in violation of minimum IFR navigation equipment requirements, but that is not my interpretation of the words available to me. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 8:05 AM Subject: RE: 91.205 (WAAS) >I wish we could somehow train the DAR and ABEA communities to accept this. > > =================== > L. Wayne Hicks > Senior Engineer > Zel Technologies, LLC > 757-325-1282 phone > wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com > http://www.zeltech.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne Sweet" <w_sweet(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Date: Jan 04, 2007
There is another solution; Fast Stack from Approach Systems. They do the wiring, provide the "hub", builder provides the ground and power to each unit. Simple and when avionics changes are made, Approach systems will provide the new harness (~$90) for the new unit to the hub. I first wired my GNS430, PMA6000 audio panel, Terra NAV/COM, marker beacon, (and more); took two months. Then on auto pilot upgrade, went with the Fast Stack. Love it. Wayne ----- Original Message ----- From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:51 AM Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) > > > Hi, > > apologies for butting in on this. We have a RV10 with full Garmin stack > and have had quite some difficulty getting pin outs and ended up sending > the units to an avionics shop to get wired. (we purchased without looms) > I have since spoken to the main Garmin agent in the UK and he explained > that due to complexity of the avionics Garmin does not encourage(read does > not make available pinout)homebuilders to do their own wiring. > > This can well be where the snag is in this story. You buy Garmin with a > manufactored loom which is tested for proper function and there's a degree > of assured quality. > This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of being able > to certify for IFR operation in your experimental. > It may also be a good idea to print a copy of 91.205 to hand over to your > DAR if he doesn't sign willingly! :-) > > Marcel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> > To: "Hicks, Wayne" > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:56 AM > Subject: Avionics-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) > > >> >> 1/3/2007 >> >> Hello Wayne, Good to hear from you. >> >> You wrote: "I've heard it said more than once that an amateur-built plane >> cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It must also have the traditional >> VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. >> They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board >> appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used. Why do you >> think experimentals are held to that when the standard certificated >> aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS GPSs >> and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board >> when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not?" >> >> I do not agree with the statement "It (an ABEA (Amateur Built >> Experimental Aircraft)) must >> also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board." >> >> Here is why I do not agree with that statement: >> >> A) "The GNS 400/500 series have earned the FAAs TSO C146a Gamma-3 >> certification, which enables pilots to fly Lateral-Precision with >> Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS navigation via the >> Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)." >> >> B) "Garmins GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAAs highest level of >> certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based >> navaids for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance similar to >> Instrument Landing System (ILS) operations without the need for >> ground-based navaids of any kind." >> >> C) "The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of >> the GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAAs WAAS regulations may >> be used for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including >> en route through precision approach at airports." >> >> These paragraph A, B, and C quotes are from a Garmin press release, see >> copy below. >> >> D) The WAAS system does involve ground facilities despite what Garmin >> says in B above. See http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm for a >> description of the WAAS that incorporates both WRS (Wide area Reference >> Stations) and a WMS (WAAS Master Station) which are facilities located on >> the ground. >> >> Therefore an ABEA equipped with either a GNS 400W/500W, but no VHF >> navigation equipment would be in compliance with its Operating >> Limitations which requires compliance with FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) >> when operating IFR. Specifically the WAAS navigation equipment of that >> aircraft would be in compliance with 91.205 (d) (2) which requires >> "navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used." >> >> I intend to upgrade my GNS 430 to 430W configuration, but I certainly >> don't intend to fly IFR if my VHF nav equipment is not operating. >> Obviously when flying an ILS approach one must have funcioning localizer >> and glideslope equipment on board. And similarly when flying a published >> approach that requires GPS / WAAS equipment then that equipment must be >> on board and functioning. >> >> OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. >> >> >> ------------------------ GARMIN PRESS RELEASE FOLLOWS -------------- >> November 9, 2006 >> Garmin Receives WAAS Certification for GNS 400W/500W series >> OLATHE, Kansas/November 9, 2006/PR Newswire Garmin International, a >> unit of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq: GRMN), today announced the achievement of a >> major aviation milestone at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association >> (AOPA) Expo in Palm Springs, CA. The GNS 400/500 series have earned the >> FAAs TSO C146a Gamma-3 certification, which enables pilots to fly >> Lateral-Precision with Vertical (LPV) guidance approaches and receive GPS >> navigation via the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS). The FAA also >> granted AML (approved model list) STC approval allowing the 400W/500W >> equipment to be installed on over 980 popular makes and models of >> aircraft. The GNS 400/500W series joins the G1000 and GNS 480 in >> providing WAAS enabled navigation for aircraft. Garmin currently offers >> more WAAS solutions than any other avionics provider. >> "This is a great day for Garmin and the aviation industry," said Gary >> Kelley, Garmins vice president of marketing. "Since the FAA commissioned >> WAAS in 2003, there has been an enormous demand for WAAS certified >> equipment in the marketplace. We are pleased to announce that all 75,000 >> Garmin GNS 400/500 series products currently in the field can upgrade to >> WAAS. We expect the number of WAAS equipped aircraft to increase quickly, >> and pilots will be able to operate to and from airports that would >> otherwise be unavailable to them in marginal weather." >> Thanks to the certification and AML STC approval, owners of Garmins >> popular GNS 400/500 series panel-mount avionics will be able to upgrade >> their products to meet the FAAs WAAS standards* without a field >> approval**. These upgrades include 5 Hz position updates, faster map >> redraws, fully coupled and guided procedure turns and holding patterns, >> and increased XM weather content. Pilots will also experience >> significantly enhanced functionality because of the WAAS LPV, LNAV/VNAV, >> LNAV+V, and LNAV approach capabilities. >> Garmins GNS 400W/500W series meets the FAAs highest level of >> certification for WAAS navigation. The units utilize satellite-based >> navaids for precise lateral and vertical approach guidance similar to >> Instrument Landing System (ILS) operations without the need for >> ground-based navaids of any kind. The Gamma-3 level of certification lets >> pilots fly the FAAs new LPV approaches. The FAA has already published >> over 600 LPV and 5,500 WAAS approach procedures. >> The WAAS system improves the accuracy, reliability and integrity of the >> GPS signal. GPS-WAAS navigators that meet FAAs WAAS regulations may be >> used for sole means of navigation* for all phases of flight, including en >> route through precision approach at airports. With WAAS LPV approaches, >> pilots will have stabilized lateral and vertical navigation and will be >> able to navigate as low as 200 feet above the runway end under instrument >> flight rules. >> Garmins panel mount avionics have been installed on nearly three-fourths >> of all U.S. single and twin-engine piston and turbine aircraft >> retrofitted since 2000. The company strives continually to raise-the-bar >> in the avionics industry, and two years ago at the 2004 AOPA Expo Garmins >> GNS 480 was the first GPS navigator in the industry to earn a TSO C146a >> Gamma-3 certification. >> Garmin expects deliveries of the new GNS 430W and GNS 530W to begin in >> about 30 days with upgrades beginning in January 2007. Upgrades are >> available for a suggested retail price of $1,500. Pilots who do not >> currently own Garmin 400/500 series equipment and are in the process of >> upgrading their avionics, will be able to purchase new GNS 430W and GNS >> 530W units for $10,750 and $16,495, respectively. Visit www.garmin.com >> for additional information or a complete list of authorized Garmin >> dealers. >> *Due to the TSO limitation in conjunction with the AFMS limitation, >> Garmins GNS 400/500 series navigators will not be certified as a >> "primary means" of GPS navigation until after customers install a new >> software version. Garmin expects to issue a Service Bulletin in the first >> quarter of 2007 issuing the software. The software will be updated via >> the 400/500W data loader card. This required software update is expected >> to be available in the first quarter of 2007. >> **The AML STC data is intended to provide complete FAA approved data for >> a large subset of CAR3/FAR23 aircraft; however, if the aircraft does not >> pre-qualify for the AML STC standards, additional means of airworthiness >> approval will be required. >> >> ------------------------ END OF GARMIN PRESS RELEASE ------------------ >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Hicks, Wayne" <wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com> >> To: >> Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:02 PM >> Subject: 91.205 >> >> >>> OC: >>> >>> Happy New Year to you! >>> >>> Can you help me to understand something? I've heard it said more than >>> once >>> that an amateur-built plane cannot be flown IFR with just a GPS. It >>> must >>> also have the traditional VOR and ILS (when needed) receivers on board. >>> They cite 91.205 and the requirement to have "...equipment on board >>> appropriate to the ***ground-based*** navaids to be used." >>> >>> Why do you think experimentals are held to that when the standard >>> certificated aircraft (Mooneys, Pipers, etc) are now flying with WAAS >>> GPSs >>> and nothing else? Why must me have the crappy, out-dated stuff on board >>> when the new avionics suites in the newer planes do not? >>> >>> I got asked this question from my Cozy builders group. About the only >>> answer I can come up with is (1) the manufacturer proved the nav >>> capabilities of the airplane's capabilities as part of its type >>> certification process; and (2) The FAA is not in the business of >>> certifying >>> the on-board nav capabilities of everyone's home-built airplane. So the >>> FAA >>> makes us use their nav system. >>> >>> How close am I? >>> >>> =================== >>> L. Wayne Hicks >>> Senior Engineer >>> Zel Technologies, LLC >>> 757-325-1282 phone >>> wayne.hicks(at)zeltech.com >>> http://www.zeltech.com >> >> >> >> >> > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com
Date: Jan 04, 2007
Subject: WAAS
I thought the WAAS signal was generated from the ground, am I wrong? Skip ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 04, 2007
From: "David M." <ainut(at)hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: WAAS
It's origins begin on the ground then the corrrections are uplinked to the sats which are then broadcast to us. CardinalNSB(at)aol.com wrote: > I thought the WAAS signal was generated from the ground, am I wrong? Skip ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: WAAS
Date: Jan 05, 2007
1/5/2007 Skip wrote: "I thought the WAAS signal was generated from the ground, am I wrong?" Hello Skip, How WAAS works is a bit complex. Here is a brief description from a US govt web site http://gps.faa.gov/programs/index.htm. ------------------------- BRIEF WAAS DESCRIPTION BEGINS ----------------------------- "How It Works Unlike traditional ground-based navigation aids, the WAAS covers nearly all of the National Airspace System (NAS). The WAAS provides augmentation information to GPS receivers to enhance the accuracy and reliability of position estimates. The signals from GPS satellites are received across the NAS at many widely-spaced Wide Area Reference Stations (WRS) sites. The WRS locations are precisely surveyed so that any errors in the received GPS signals can be detected. The GPS information collected by the WRS sites is forwarded to the WAAS Master Station (WMS) via a terrestrial communications network. At the WMS, the WAAS augmentation messages are generated. These messages contain information that allows GPS receivers to remove errors in the GPS signal, allowing for a significant increase in location accuracy and reliability. The augmentation messages are sent from the WMS to uplink stations to be transmitted to navigation payloads on Geostationary communications satellites. The navigation payloads broadcast the augmentation messages on a GPS-like signal. The GPS/WAAS receiver processes the WAAS augmentation message as part of estimating position. The GPS-like signal from the navigation transponder can also be used by the receiver as an additional source for calculation of the user's position. WAAS also provides indications to GPS/WAAS receivers of where the GPS system is unusable due to system errors or other effects. Further, the WAAS system was designed to the strictest of safety standards - users are notified within six seconds of any issuance of hazardously misleading information that would cause an error in the GPS position estimate." ------------------------------- BRIEF WAAS DESCRIPTION ENDS -------------------------------- One significant point that I want to make is that while WAAS is not considered a "ground based system" by the US Govt it still involves "ground facilities" and 91.205 (d) (2) reads "Two way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used". My position is that an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) equipped with TSO C146a Gamma-3 certification WAAS avionics complies with 91.205 (d) (2). OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. From: CardinalNSB(at)aol.com Subject: Avionics-List: WAAS I thought the WAAS signal was generated from the ground, am I wrong? Skip ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: 91.205 (WAAS)
Date: Jan 05, 2007
1/5/2007 Hello Marcel, Thank you for your input. I welcome information from across the ocean. You wrote: "This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of being able to certify for IFR operation in your experimental." One of my major points is that there is no such thing as "certifying for IFR operation" in an ABEA (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) here in the US. The FAA has neither the capability or, under the present FAR's, the process to certify an ABEA for IFR operations. Instead, for the equipment required for IFR operations, the builder / pilot is given the responsibility in the aircraft's Operating Limitations to comply with FAR 91.205, part of which requires: "Two way radio communications system and navigational equipment appropriate to the ground facilities to be used". OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. From: "RAS" <deruiteraircraftservices(at)btinternet.com> Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) Hi, apologies for butting in on this. We have a RV10 with full Garmin stack and have had quite some difficulty getting pin outs and ended up sending the units to an avionics shop to get wired. (we purchased without looms) I have since spoken to the main Garmin agent in the UK and he explained that due to complexity of the avionics Garmin does not encourage(read does not make available pinout)homebuilders to do their own wiring. This can well be where the snag is in this story. You buy Garmin with a manufactored loom which is tested for proper function and there's a degree of assured quality. This combined with addition of WAAS may make the difference of being able to certify for IFR operation in your experimental. It may also be a good idea to print a copy of 91.205 to hand over to your DAR if he doesn't sign willingly! :-) Marcel ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: 91.205 (WAAS)
Date: Jan 05, 2007
1/5/2007 Hello Bill, Welcome to the world of IFR flight and thanks for your questions. You wrote: "....skip....can you explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav?" No, I can't. But let's examine the reality of a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane. I can't speak for the high end integrated systems (Chelton, Avidyne, etc.), but the Garmin 400 / 500 series GPS units that can be upgraded to a 430W or 530W configuration already contain VHF nav capability. I presume the newly built 430W and 530W boxes will also contain VHF nav capability. So one will continue to have VHF nav capability even after a WAAS upgrade or new purchase with these kinds of boxes. Maybe an issue is whether or not one should plan on / need a separate VHF nav box such as an SL-30 for back up purposes.** A) So with an approach qualified GPS (non WAAS capable) and VHF nav one can have four different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1) VOR, 2) Localizer, 3) ILS, 4) GPS. B) With an approach qualified GPS (with WAAS capability) and VHF nav one can have five different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1) VOR, 2) Localizer, 3) ILS, 4) GPS, 5) an approach that requires WAAS to achieve the published minimums. C) With no approach qualified GPS and only VHF nav one can have three different instrument approaches to demonstrate to an examiner: 1) VOR, 2) Localizer, 3) ILS. And the question of ADF capability in your aircraft doesn't need to raise its ugly head unless you choose to use some GPS capability to substitute for a NDB where permitted. You might want to discuss the above positions with your examiner prior to showing up for the practical test to determine if he agrees. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. **PS: I use my GNS 430 and SL-30 together whenever possible. If one intends to fly IFR to the extent that an approach capable GPS is needed then I think the investment in a separate VHF nav box is well justified. From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) Question from a fledgeling IFR student (meaning I've begun reading for the written, but have zero instructional time with a live mentor so far): The practical flight test standards call for 3 different types of instrument approaches to be made, a requirement that I interpret to mean an NDB would be required if there were not an approach-certified GPS on board to substitute for it (localizer and ILS being the other two types of approach I can think of). Without getting sidetracked into a discussion of how to avoid unpopular NDB navigation, can you explain how one might satisfy the training and checkride requirements in a WAAS-GPS-only equipped plane with no VHF nav? You didn't say this was the case, but the question has relevance to me as a homebuilder still planning his IFR panel upgrade. Thanks, gentlemen. Bill B. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS)
Date: Jan 05, 2007
1/5/2007 Hello Bill, 1) You wrote: " Sorry to cloud any points in the thread." Not a problem at all -- you gave us an opportunity to broaden the picture a bit. 2) You wrote: "....skip.....the question more heavily on my mind: about the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install" Now this raises a very interesting issue. Is GRT going to TSO this equipment? They haven't gone that route in the past. Note that paragraph 1-1-20 c of the aim requires that WAAS avionics meet either TSO C145 or 146A. Your SL-30 would make it legal to fly IFR, but if your GRT WAAS / internal GPS in your EFIS is not TSO'd it is not clear to me what additional legal value it would have when operating IFR. Like any other reasonably capable GPS unit it could provide very beneficial situational awareness support. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 1:33 PM Subject: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) > OC, let me fess up here... I forgot that the GNS-430 includes the vhf > nav comm side of things! I read the actual words in your post, but my > brain fast-forwarded to the question more heavily on my mind: about > the adequacy of the WAAS / internal GPS being brought out by Grand > Rapids Tech for the EFIS system I'm planning to install, the one that > would let me omit the 430 from my purchase list and use just an SL30 > in its place (and save mega-thousands). So my question was based in > part on faulty assumptions of what was inside the 430- and > partly on my impatience to get my own questions answered. Sorry to > cloud any points in the thread. > > -Bill B. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS)
Date: Jan 06, 2007
1/6/2007 Hello Bill, You wrote: ".....skip........a contact visual approach in VMC....skip...." In order to keep our semantics correct a contact approach and a visual approach are two different approaches used in different circumstances. See the AIM for a description of each -- very easy to confuse the two. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. ________________________________ From: "Bill Boyd" <sportav8r(at)gmail.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: RE: instrument approach types, was 91.205 (WAAS) Well, Glen, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe a student for the IFR rating could go fly with the examiner with only an approach-certified GPS on board for nav, and shoot a GPS approach, a PAR approach to a military airport, and a contact visual approach in VMC and walk away with his ticket. I bet that's never been done, though. It seems to violate the spirit of the thing, somehow ;-) -Bill B. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: GRT GPS TSO
Date: Jan 08, 2007
1/8/2006 Hello Bret, You quote GRT as writing: "The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR GPS TSO C129 and C146." This sounds like some subtle weasel wording to me. A piece of equipment either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked TSO compliant or it is not TSO'd. The manufacturer does not get to cherry pick certain standards within the TSO, or its references, just meet certain standards, and then mark the equipment as TSO'd. Most manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of obtaining TSO approval for a piece of equipment are very eager to make that approval and marking very evident to any prospective purchaser. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. On 5 Jan 2007, at 22:05, Bret Smith wrote: > > > See http://www.grtavionics.com/documents/Horizon%20System%20Flyer.pdf > > "The addition of the internal GPS receiver eliminates the need for an > external > GPS, or may be used as a backup to your primary GPS. Available in two > versions. The standard WAAS GPS module is perfect for VFR use, or > as backup > to an external GPS. The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity > monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR > GPS > TSO C129 and C146." > > Standard WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $450 > RAIM-Equipped WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $750 > > > Bret Smith > RV-9A (91314) > Mineral Bluff, GA > www.FlightInnovations.com > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: ABEA and TSO's
Date: Jan 08, 2007
1/8/2007 Hello Old Bob, You wrote: "I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is a TSO required for operations of a home built aircraft?" I believe that a narrow legalistic response to your question is "No, because there are no published certification standards that ABEA's (Amateur Built Experimental Aircraft) are required to meet." But in a real world practical sense there are some operations that ABEA's participate in that require them to interface with other aircraft or facilities and those operations require compatibility with published standards established for those other entities. Compatibility could conceivably be achieved by individually creating equipment equivalent to a published standard, but the practicality of such creation is, in most cases, very remote.** In the postings copied below the operation at issue is GPS requirements for IFR operations. Here is just one extract (others may be found) from chapter 1-1-19 in the current edition of the AIM: "g. Equipment and Database Requirements 1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems requires that: (a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and" I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe that an ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being called to account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or improper performance on his part would have a very difficult time convincing the authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be entirely acceptable to them. So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger him or others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that goal then his choice should be clear to him. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. **PS: One notable exception is in the arena of external lighting where some innovative LED equipment may, in fact, be superior to the TSO requirements. But proving that superiority and getting an initial airworthiness inspector of an ABEA to accept the equipment (if he chooses to make it an issue) may be a problem. ----------------------- COPIED POSTINGS FOLLOW ----------------- From: BobsV35B(at)aol.com Subject: AeroElectric-List: Re: 91.205 (WAAS) Good Morning Kevin, I am definitely stepping out from my area of expertise here, but is a TSO required for operations of a home built aircraft? It isn't even required for all operations of certificated aircraft. The determination of the equipment that is required for IFR flight appears to be left up to the operator. As long as the operator determines that the equipment meets the standards required for IFR flight, the stuff should be acceptable. What do you feel is required? Happy Skies, Old Bob AKA Bob Siegfried Ancient Aviator Stearman N3977A Brookeridge Air Park LL22 Downers Grove, IL 60516 630 985-8503 In a message dated 1/6/2007 6:26:49 A.M. Central Standard Time, khorton01(at)rogers.com writes: I'd ask to see a copy of the letters from the FAA that confirm the TSOs have been issued. Kevin Horton ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 09, 2007
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
Folks, There seems to be some confusion on standards here. RAIM is only applicable to C129 GPS engines, when used as "stand alone" units (ie: not as part of a full FMCS system as installed in larger aircraft, giving a navigation capability semi-independent of RAIM, such as IRS to cover short term signal outages). A major aim of the C145/146 RTCA docs. is to eliminate the shortcomings of the RAIM system, ie: when RAIM is lost the navigation function is lost, not something desirable with sole source navigation. There are serious shortcomings with the way the TSO is written, it is not outcome based, but very prescriptive of process, and allows little room for alternative means of compliance with the TSO, hence the limited choice and very high price of C145/146. As to TSO's, they are not necessarily a "one stop shop", but go in "steps and stages". WAAS is another matter altogether, used to improve the derived position accuracy. Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 03:47 AM 9/01/2007, you wrote: > >1/8/2006 > >Hello Bret, You quote GRT as writing: "The new RAIM-equipped version >provides integrity >monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR >GPS TSO C129 and C146." > >This sounds like some subtle weasel wording to me. A piece of >equipment either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked TSO >compliant or it is not TSO'd. > >The manufacturer does not get to cherry pick certain standards >within the TSO, or its references, just meet certain standards, and >then mark the equipment as TSO'd. > >Most manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of >obtaining TSO approval for a piece of equipment are very eager to >make that approval and marking very evident to any prospective purchaser. > >OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > >On 5 Jan 2007, at 22:05, Bret Smith wrote: > >> >> >>See http://www.grtavionics.com/documents/Horizon%20System%20Flyer.pdf >> >>"The addition of the internal GPS receiver eliminates the need for an >>external >>GPS, or may be used as a backup to your primary GPS. Available in two >>versions. The standard WAAS GPS module is perfect for VFR use, or >>as backup >>to an external GPS. The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity >>monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR >>GPS >>TSO C129 and C146." >> >>Standard WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $450 >>RAIM-Equipped WAAS GPS Receiver with antenna $750 >> >> >>Bret Smith >>RV-9A (91314) >>Mineral Bluff, GA >>www.FlightInnovations.com > > 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: GRT GPS TSO
Date: Jan 09, 2007
1/9/2007 Hello Bret, Continuing our dialogue. 1) You wrote: "If I get called out on the carpet for a non-TSO'd GPS, what would they say about my non-TSO'd TruTrak AP, Ray Allen trim system, GRT AHRS/Magnetometer, HID homegrown landing lights, LED nav lights, etc?" I believe that IFR / Night equipment for ABEA's falls into one of the following categories: 1A) Purely optional equipment installed at the desire of the builder with no existing regulatory requirement. 1B) Equipment required by FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) because of wording in the aircraft's Operating Limitations. 1C) Equipment required by FAR 91.205 (b), (c), and (d) because of wording in the aircraft's Operating Limitation that is identified as needing to be "approved" in those paragraphs. 1D) Equipment required by other paragraphs within the FAR's that would apply to all aircraft, both type certificated with standard airworthiness certificates and ABEA's with special airworthiness certificates. 1E) Equipment required by the AIM for certain types of operations that would apply to all aircraft, both type certificated with standard airworthiness certificates and ABEA's with special airworthiness certificates. 2) Your non-TSO'd TruTrak AP, Ray Allen trim system, GRT AHRS/Magnetometer, HID homegrown landing lights and other equipment of that ilk would fall into category 1A above and should generate no FAA criticism because it is not TSO'd. 3) Your LED nav (position) lights would fall into category 1C above. See 91.205 (c), (2). If your initial ABEA airworthiness inspector issues the aircraft a special airworthiness certificate he has, by implication, "approved" those position lights in the name of the FAA Administrator (see FAR 1.1). If he refuses to issue the certificate and demands to see TSO markings because the regulations require it, he is wrong. If he refuses to issue the certificate and demands to see either TSO markings or test results showing that the lights meet FAR Part 23 position light standards, that is within his prerogative as an inspector. 4) If you had only a non TSO'd GPS aboard and performed a specific operation that the AIM required a TSO approved GPS for then you would not be in compliance with 1E and may be subject to a charge of careless or reckless operation (see FAR 91.13). 5) You wrote: "My understanding is that before flight into the national air system, under IFR, the pilot/builder of the OBAM aircraft must determine and document via flight testing that the aircraft and it's systems meet the requirements for IFR flight, night flight, etc." This is certainly common sense. I would be interested in seeing some regulatory basis for the above. The sources that I am aware of that cover specific ABEA requirements for IFR and night flight are the Operating Limitations for that aircraft and the references contained therein including FAR 91.319. FAR 91.319 (d), (2) reads "Operate under VFR day only, unless otherwise specifically authorized by the Administrator." The Operating Limitations will contain these words: "After completion of Phase I flight testing, unless appropriately equipped for night and/or instrument flight in accordance with 91.205, this aircraft is to be operated under VFR, day only." If the aircraft meets the "appropriately equipped" criteria it is considerd by the FAA to have been given the Administrator's specific authorization to fly at night and under IFR. What we have been discussing is what constitutes "appropriately equipped".** OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. **PS: It is interesting to note that if the aircraft is given authorization for aerobatic flight in the Operating Limitations that those maneuvers must be specifically tested and documented in the aircraft's logbook. PPS: You wrote: "This is a really interesting topic and I truly respect your opinions. It is evident you have a good understanding of these issues." I appreciate your kind words. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 4:46 PM Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO >I see your point, and have a GNS 430 as my primary GPS. I want the GRT IFR >GPS as a secondary GPS (hard to beat getting an IFR WAAS GPS for $750.00). > > If I get called out on the carpet for a non-TSO'd GPS, what would they say > about my non-TSO'd TruTrak AP, Ray Allen trim system, GRT > AHRS/Magnetometer, HID homegrown landing lights, LED nav lights, etc? > > My understanding is that before flight into the national air system, under > IFR, the pilot/builder of the OBAM aircraft must determine and document > via flight testing that the aircraft and it's systems meet the > requirements for IFR flight, night flight, etc. > > Bret > > PS, This is a really interesting topic and I truly respect your opinions. > It is evident you have a good understanding of these issues. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: GRT GPS TSO
Date: Jan 09, 2007
1/9/2007 Hello Bill, 1) You wrote: " In some instances the regs require that a piece of equipment MUST MEET TSO STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders. In other instances the equipment MUST BE TSO'd. This is the case with IFR GPS units." Both TSO-145A and TSO-C146A dealing with IFR GPS units contain the following paragraph (MPS means Minimum Performance Standards): "g. Deviations. The FAA has provisions for using alternative or equivalent means of compliance to the criteria set forth in the MPS of this TSO. Applicants invoking these provisions shall demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety is maintained and shall apply for a deviation per 14 CFR 21.609" 2) TSO-C129a is an older TSO dealing with IFR GPS units and does not contain specific alternate compliance words within it as is the case with more current FAA TSO's, but here is a quote from the current AIM, note the use of the word "equivalent": "g. Equipment and Database Requirements. 1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems requires that: (a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and......" 3) You wrote: "If simply meeting the TSO requirements is adequate, why should a manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"?" My point exactly. Simply meeting some of the TSO requirements is not adequate to fulfill the intent of the FAA TSO requirements. GRT implies that they are completely fulfilling the FAA TSO intent by writing: "The new RAIM-equipped version provides integrity monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the requirements of IFR GPS TSO C129 and C146." The equipment must either be TSO'd in accordance with the provisions of FAR Part 21 Subpart O or FAA deviation approval from the TSO in accordance with paragraph 21.609 must be obtained. Neither one of these are easy actions to take and there is no indication in the GRT statement posted that either action has been taken. Hence my suspicion of misleading weasel wording. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GRT GPS TSO "A piece of equipment either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked TSO compliant or it is not TSO'd." True, but not necessarily the point... In some instances the regs require that a piece of equipment MUST MEET TSO STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders. In other instances the equipment MUST BE TSO'd. This is the case with IFR GPS units. You mentioned, "...manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of obtaining TSO approval for a piece of equipment..." If simply meeting the TSO requirements is adequate, why should a manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"? ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: ABEA and TSO's
Date: Jan 09, 2007
1/9/2007 Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input. 1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no law against it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial." This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we have come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real soon. We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have non regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.) to help interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those same bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers) interpreting and enforcing those regulations. And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB judge charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation because you violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and certificate action is not immaterial. 2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several years, but then went flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in the wind." The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a pilot knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that the AIM said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or violation occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to punishment for such a violation of the AIM. This is true. 3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price, only lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing, why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the pre-requisite homework, after all?" If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only be performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking a risk. His risk could result in: a) No harm. b) Embarrassment. c) A fine. d) Loss of certificate e) Injury to self or others. f) Death of self or others. g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding community. Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational effort through these postings to help him make a better choice. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. ________________________________ From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote: > I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe > that an ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being > called to account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or > improper performance on his part would have a very difficult time > convincing the authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be > entirely acceptable to them. Could you please stand back while I prepare to insert my foot in my mouth, but... That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no law against it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial. That just quacks to much like "ex post facto" law to not be "ex post facto" law. If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several years, but then went flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in the wind. > So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his > aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger > him or others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that > goal then his choice should be clear to him. If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price, only lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing, why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the pre-requisite homework, after all? Ernest Christley ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Doug20310" <N1deltawhiskey(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: ABEA and TSO's
Date: Jan 09, 2007
My 2 cents ( well maybe less) in support of Bob's arguments. Liability culpability is generally based on the principle that a person may be held liable if he/she does not do what a reasonable and PRUDENT person would do in similar circumstances. Ernest, based on your arguments, you are a reasonable person. Bob's arguments are directed toward the PRUDENT part of the equation. If one follows your position, you could, and would likely (with a respectable offensive attorney), be found to be imprudent is you did not do the best that you could to prevent/mitigate the incident for which you are being tried. The result is that you would be guilty regardless of your "reason". FWIW, Doug Windhorn ----- Original Message ----- From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net> Sent: Tuesday, 09 January, 2007 11:40 Subject: Avionics-List: ABEA and TSO's > > 1/9/2007 > > Hello Ernest, Thanks for your input. > > 1) You wrote: "That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no > law against > it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a country!? > The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when consideration of fines > begin, it is immaterial." > > This may not be the best way to run a country, but it is the system we > have come up with over the years and I don't expect it to change real > soon. > > We have formal laws passed by congress (Title 14), we have regulations > written by bureaucrats to implement those laws (FAR's), and we have non > regulatory documents (Advisory Circulars, AIM, FAA Orders, etc.) to help > interpret and implement those regulations. Then we have those same > bureacrats (ninety percent of whom seem to be non-pilot lawyers) > interpreting and enforcing those regulations. > > And I can assure you that if you are standing in front of an NTSB judge > charged with violation of FAR 91 Careless and Reckless Operation because > you violated a provision of the AIM that a potential fine and certificate > action is not immaterial. > > 2) You wrote: "If the non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several > years, but then went > flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a TSOed > unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in the > wind." > > The above is not an accurate description of the issue. The issue was a > pilot knowingly using a non TSO'd unit to perform an IFR maneuver that the > AIM said required a TSO'd unit (or equivalent) and a deviation or > violation occurred. I wrote that the pilot could be subject to punishment > for such a violation of the AIM. This is true. > > 3) You wrote: "If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the > price, only > lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing, why > wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the > pre-requisite homework, after all?" > > If the builder knowingly installs and uses non TSO'd (or equivalent) > equipment to perform an IFR operation that the FAA intends should only be > performed by TSO'd (or equivalent) equipment that builder is taking a > risk. His risk could result in: > > a) No harm. > > b) Embarrassment. > > c) A fine. > > d) Loss of certificate > > e) Injury to self or others. > > f) Death of self or others. > > g) Damage to the image and reputation of the entire homebuilding > community. > > Since I have a stake in e, f, and g, above I am making the educational > effort through these postings to help him make a better choice. > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > > ________________________________ > > From: Ernest Christley <echristley(at)nc.rr.com> > Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: ABEA and TSO's > > bakerocb(at)cox.net wrote: > >> I understand that the AIM is not regulatory in nature, but I believe >> that an ABEA pilot having flown a GPS approach under IFR, and being >> called to account by the FAA or the NTSB for some sort of deviation or >> improper performance on his part would have a very difficult time >> convincing the authorities that his non TSO'd GPS equipment should be >> entirely acceptable to them. > > Could you please stand back while I prepare to insert my foot in my > mouth, but... > > That, to me, is a convoluted way of thinking. "There's no law against > it, but we don't like what you did." Is that any way to run a > country!? The AIM is not regulatory in nature. OK, then when > consideration of fines begin, it is immaterial. That just quacks to > much like "ex post facto" law to not be "ex post facto" law. If the > non-TSOed unit operated as advertised for several years, but then went > flaky enough to cause and incident, it would be no different than a > TSOed unit going tits-up. How an inspector 'feels' about it is smoke in > the wind. > >> So the prudent ABEA builder / pilot does his homework and equips his >> aircraft so that it will perform in a manner that will not endanger >> him or others. If TSO'd equipment is the best way to accomplish that >> goal then his choice should be clear to him. > > If non-TSOed equipment performs just as well at half the price, only > lacking the reams of paperwork required for the bureaucratic blessing, > why wouldn't the choice be equally clear? The builder has done the > pre-requisite homework, after all? > > Ernest Christley > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <bakerocb(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
Date: Jan 09, 2007
1/9/2007 Hello Bret: 1) You wrote: "As you can see, the FAA has left a wide loophole with the phrase "or equivalent"." The FAA has learned from experience that locking technical requirements in bureaucratic documents in concrete can come back to bite them when technology comes up with a better mouse trap that was not envisioned in the document. So now-a-days they caveat their TSO's with a statement to the effect that "if you can do it just as good, but maybe a little differently we are willing to listen to your proposal." The process for a request to deviate is described in FAR 21.609 and the loophole is not that wide. You might find that entire FAR 21 Subpart O interesting reading. You can see that obtaining TSO approval and manufacturing in accordance with that approval can be burdensome.** 2) You wrote: "It appears that, from my understanding, a GPS used for IFR navigation must meet the minimum standard of RTCA/DO-208 in order to meet the standard of TSO-C129 in order to be approved for IFR navigation." I agree. Also realize that there are other documents referenced in TSO-C129a that may contain standards that the unit may have to meet. And the FAA may chose to not incorporate all provisions of referenced documents into the TSO. Some TSO's are absolutely infuriating -- they say nothing of substance technically themselves, but instead reference several documents (such as SAE documents) that cost a bunch of money for just three or four pages. 3) You wrote: "Problem is, I don't see where the FAA requires the GPS to be "certified". I agree. The words theFAA uses are "authorization (to perfom IFR operations) requires equipment approved IAW TSO -C129" (version C129a is the current version). Lawyers may not agree with me, but I bet the Garmin marketing people looked at the FAA terminology of "authorization" and "approved" and said "certified sounds better to us". 4) You wrote: "I may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin states their GNS430 is "IFR Approach Certified", they are only stating that this receiver meets the requirements of TSO-C129." I agree -- and also meeting all the pertinent references to TSO-C129a and permitting the FAA oversight of Garmin's production of the GNS 430. (See FAR 21.615). In addition now Garmin is stating that the GNS 430W meets all the requirements of TSO 146a. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. **PS: I worked with Lance Turk, founder of Vision Microsystems, on a special size oil temperature probe for my TCM engine. He would not make the probe for me because it would be non TSO'd and he did not want to contaminate his FAA TSO approved production line. I wound up buying an empty brass temperature probe body from Westach and sending it to Lance so that he could have one of his technicians epoxy one of the Vision Microsystems special oil temperature probe sensors into that brass body's cavity. Works like a charm. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:19 PM Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO OC, This is truly fascinating. You said > 4) If you had only a non TSO'd GPS aboard and performed a specific operation that the AIM required a TSO approved GPS for then you would not be in compliance with 1E and may be subject to a charge of careless or reckless T operation (see FAR 91.13). A brief perusal of the AIM revealed: (italics mine) 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, and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System, or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation Sensors, or equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does not meet the requirements of TSO-C129. The words "must be approved..." pretty much settles the issue with me. Then they continue on with the phrase "or equivalent". What would be equivalent to TSO-C129? So off I go to read TSO-C129.... http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/e560cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf I now know the requirements of any GPS to meet the TSO... "Airborne supplemental area navigation equipment using GPS that are to be so identified and that are manufactured on or after the date of this TSO must meet the minimum performance standard of Section 2, RTCA, Inc. Document No. RTCA/DO-208, "Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Airborne Supplemental Navigation Equipment Using Global Positioning System (GPS)," dated July 1991." See the RTCA/DO-208 document here... http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/meetings/summaryrpts/31stmeeting/chesto/chesto.pdf As you can see, the FAA has left a wide loophole with the phrase "or equivalent". It appears that, from my understanding, a GPS used for IFR navigation must meet the minimum standard of RTCA/DO-208 in order to meet the standard of TSO-C129 in order to be approved for IFR navigation. Problem is, I don't see where the FAA requires the GPS to be "certified". I may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin states their GNS430 is "IFR Approach Certified", they are only stating that this receiver meets the requirements of TSO-C129. Your thoughts are appreciated. Bret ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2007
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
Folks, The difference between the performance of TSO'd equipment and apparently similar performance non-TSO'd equipment is not trivial. There are very good reasons for requiring RAIM in C-129a units, for most of the non-TSO units, there is no or inadequate internal monitoring of the position solution and navigation output, as the accident record shows, that can be seriously fatal. Please, please, please, everybody, don't go flying IFR with non-TSO GPS equipment, the database of demonstrated problems in the field is hair-raising. Just for starters, the integrity of the basic software (not the navigation database) is unknown. A hunt around the Australian CASA web site will find some interesting facts about incidents and accidents, world wide, using the wrong GPS in the wrong place, or drop Ian Mallet, head of the GNSS Office at CASA an email, I am certain he will provide you with some rather interesting references. Cheers, Bill Hamilton At 09:10 AM 10/01/2007, you wrote: > >1/9/2007 > >Hello Bret: > >1) You wrote: "As you can see, the FAA has left a wide loophole with >the phrase "or equivalent"." > >The FAA has learned from experience that locking technical >requirements in bureaucratic documents in concrete can come back to >bite them when technology comes up with a better mouse trap that was >not envisioned in the document. So now-a-days they caveat their >TSO's with a statement to the effect that "if you can do it just as >good, but maybe a little differently we are willing to listen to >your proposal." > >The process for a request to deviate is described in FAR 21.609 and >the loophole is not that wide. You might find that entire FAR 21 >Subpart O interesting reading. You can see that obtaining TSO >approval and manufacturing in accordance with that approval can be >burdensome.** > >2) You wrote: "It appears that, from my understanding, a GPS used >for IFR navigation must meet the minimum standard of RTCA/DO-208 in >order to meet the standard of TSO-C129 in order to be approved for >IFR navigation." > >I agree. Also realize that there are other documents referenced in >TSO-C129a that may contain standards that the unit may have to meet. >And the FAA may chose to not incorporate all provisions of >referenced documents into the TSO. Some TSO's are absolutely >infuriating -- they say nothing of substance technically themselves, >but instead reference several documents (such as SAE documents) that >cost a bunch of money for just three or four pages. > >3) You wrote: "Problem is, I don't see where the FAA requires the >GPS to be "certified". > >I agree. The words theFAA uses are "authorization (to perfom IFR >operations) requires equipment approved IAW TSO -C129" (version >C129a is the current version). Lawyers may not agree with me, but I >bet the Garmin marketing people looked at the FAA terminology of >"authorization" and "approved" and said "certified sounds better to us". > >4) You wrote: "I may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin >states their GNS430 is "IFR Approach Certified", they are only >stating that this receiver meets the requirements of TSO-C129." > >I agree -- and also meeting all the pertinent references to >TSO-C129a and permitting the FAA oversight of Garmin's production of >the GNS 430. (See FAR 21.615). > >In addition now Garmin is stating that the GNS 430W meets all the >requirements of TSO 146a. > >OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > >**PS: I worked with Lance Turk, founder of Vision Microsystems, on a >special size oil temperature probe for my TCM engine. He would not >make the probe for me because it would be non TSO'd and he did not >want to contaminate his FAA TSO approved production line. I wound up >buying an empty brass temperature probe body from Westach and >sending it to Lance so that he could have one of his technicians >epoxy one of the Vision Microsystems special oil temperature probe >sensors into that brass body's cavity. Works like a charm. > >----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> >To: >Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:19 PM >Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO > > >OC, > >This is truly fascinating. > >You said > >4) If you had only a non TSO'd GPS aboard and performed a specific operation >that the AIM required a TSO approved GPS for then you would not be in >compliance with 1E and may be subject to a charge of careless or reckless T >operation (see FAR 91.13). > >A brief perusal of the AIM revealed: (italics mine) > >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, and the installation must be > done in accordance with Advisory Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness > Approval of Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation Equipment > for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation System, or > Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of Navigation > or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation > Sensors, or equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with > TSO-C115a does not meet the requirements of TSO-C129. > >The words "must be approved..." pretty much settles the issue with >me. Then they continue on with the phrase "or equivalent". What >would be equivalent to TSO-C129? So off I go to read TSO-C129.... > >http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/e560cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf > >I now know the requirements of any GPS to meet the TSO... > > "Airborne supplemental area navigation equipment using GPS > that are to be so identified and that are manufactured on or after > the date of this TSO must meet the minimum performance standard > of Section 2, RTCA, Inc. Document No. RTCA/DO-208, "Minimum > Operational Performance Standards for Airborne Supplemental > Navigation Equipment Using Global Positioning System (GPS)," dated July 1991." > >See the RTCA/DO-208 document here... >http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/meetings/summaryrpts/31stmeeting/chesto/chesto.pdf > >As you can see, the FAA has left a wide loophole with the phrase "or >equivalent". It appears that, from my understanding, a GPS used for >IFR navigation must meet the minimum standard of RTCA/DO-208 in >order to meet the standard of TSO-C129 in order to be approved for >IFR navigation. > >Problem is, I don't see where the FAA requires the GPS to be >"certified". I may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin >states their GNS430 is "IFR Approach Certified", they are only >stating that this receiver meets the requirements of TSO-C129. > >Your thoughts are appreciated. > >Bret > > 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2007
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
Folks, My comments were only directed at what seemed to me, to be some confusion about RAIM versus C145/146. I think my post has been taken a bit too widely. Re. compliance standards for C145/146, believe me the way the TSO (and RTCA docs.) are written, they are very prescriptive, generic words about alternative means of compliance, however expressed, don't make much difference here. The difference in price between C129a(still the majority of production GPS, whether the final set is TSO or not) is really quite dramatic. As to FAA requirements for IFR flight, I'm not buying into that, I have enough problems with our own rules, but I would much rather be working with the FAA system, it is quite reasonably pragmatic and at least has some flexibility. Cheers, Bill Hamilton ---------- At 05:50 AM 10/01/2007, you wrote: > >1/9/2007 > >Hello Bill, > >1) You wrote: " In some instances the regs >require that a piece of equipment MUST MEET TSO >STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders. >In other instances the equipment MUST BE TSO'd. >This is the case with IFR GPS units." > >Both TSO-145A and TSO-C146A dealing with IFR GPS >units contain the following paragraph (MPS means >Minimum Performance Standards): > >"g. Deviations. The FAA has provisions for using >alternative or equivalent means of compliance to >the criteria set forth in the MPS of this TSO. >Applicants invoking these provisions shall >demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety >is maintained and shall apply for a deviation per 14 CFR =A7 21.609" > >2) TSO-C129a is an older TSO dealing with IFR >GPS units and does not contain specific >alternate compliance words within it as is the >case with more current FAA TSO's, but here is a >quote from the current AIM, note the use of the word "equivalent": > >"g. Equipment and Database Requirements. > >1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems >requires that: >(a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in >class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and......" > >3) You wrote: "If simply meeting the TSO >requirements is adequate, why should a >manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"?" > >My point exactly. Simply meeting some of the TSO >requirements is not adequate to fulfill the intent of the FAA TSO requirements. > >GRT implies that they are completely fulfilling >the FAA TSO intent by writing: "The new >RAIM-equipped version provides integrity >monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the >requirements of IFR GPS TSO C129 and C146." > >The equipment must either be TSO'd in accordance >with the provisions of FAR Part 21 Subpart O or >FAA deviation approval from the TSO in >accordance with paragraph 21.609 must be >obtained. Neither one of these are easy actions >to take and there is no indication in the GRT >statement posted that either action has been >taken. Hence my suspicion of misleading weasel wording. > >OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > >From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GRT GPS TSO > >"A piece of equipment either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked >TSO compliant or it is not TSO'd." > >True, but not necessarily the point... > >In some instances the regs require that a piece of equipment MUST MEET TSO >STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders. > >In other instances the equipment MUST BE TSO'd. This is the case with IFR >GPS units. > >You mentioned, "...manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of >obtaining TSO approval for a piece of equipment..." > >If simply meeting the TSO requirements is adequate, why should a >manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"? > > 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2007
From: W J R HAMILTON <wjrhamilton(at)optusnet.com.au>
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
Folks, My comments were only directed at what seemed to me, to be some confusion about RAIM versus C145/146. I think my post has been taken a bit too widely. Re. compliance standards for C145/146, believe me the way the TSO (and RTCA docs.) are written, they are very prescriptive, generic words about alternative means of compliance, however expressed, don't make much difference here. The difference in price between C129a(still the majority of production GPS, whether the final set is TSO or not) is really quite dramatic. As to FAA requirements for IFR flight, I'm not buying into that, I have enough problems with our own rules, but I would much rather be working with the FAA system, it is quite reasonably pragmatic and at least has some flexibility. Cheers, Bill Hamilton ---------- At 05:50 AM 10/01/2007, you wrote: > >1/9/2007 > >Hello Bill, > >1) You wrote: " In some instances the regs >require that a piece of equipment MUST MEET TSO >STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders. >In other instances the equipment MUST BE TSO'd. >This is the case with IFR GPS units." > >Both TSO-145A and TSO-C146A dealing with IFR GPS >units contain the following paragraph (MPS means >Minimum Performance Standards): > >"g. Deviations. The FAA has provisions for using >alternative or equivalent means of compliance to >the criteria set forth in the MPS of this TSO. >Applicants invoking these provisions shall >demonstrate that an equivalent level of safety >is maintained and shall apply for a deviation per 14 CFR =A7 21.609" > >2) TSO-C129a is an older TSO dealing with IFR >GPS units and does not contain specific >alternate compliance words within it as is the >case with more current FAA TSO's, but here is a >quote from the current AIM, note the use of the word "equivalent": > >"g. Equipment and Database Requirements. > >1. Authorization to fly approaches under IFR using GPS avionics systems >requires that: >(a) A pilot use GPS avionics with TSO- C129, or equivalent, authorization in >class A1, B1, B3, C1, or C3; and......" > >3) You wrote: "If simply meeting the TSO >requirements is adequate, why should a >manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"?" > >My point exactly. Simply meeting some of the TSO >requirements is not adequate to fulfill the intent of the FAA TSO requirements. > >GRT implies that they are completely fulfilling >the FAA TSO intent by writing: "The new >RAIM-equipped version provides integrity >monitoring and 5 updates per second to meet the >requirements of IFR GPS TSO C129 and C146." > >The equipment must either be TSO'd in accordance >with the provisions of FAR Part 21 Subpart O or >FAA deviation approval from the TSO in >accordance with paragraph 21.609 must be >obtained. Neither one of these are easy actions >to take and there is no indication in the GRT >statement posted that either action has been >taken. Hence my suspicion of misleading weasel wording. > >OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > >From: "Bill Denton" <bdenton(at)bdenton.com> >Subject: RE: AeroElectric-List: GRT GPS TSO > >"A piece of equipment either meets the full TSO requirements and is marked >TSO compliant or it is not TSO'd." > >True, but not necessarily the point... > >In some instances the regs require that a piece of equipment MUST MEET TSO >STANDARDS. This is the case with transponders. > >In other instances the equipment MUST BE TSO'd. This is the case with IFR >GPS units. > >You mentioned, "...manufacturers who have gone to the expense and effort of >obtaining TSO approval for a piece of equipment..." > >If simply meeting the TSO requirements is adequate, why should a >manufacturer "go to the expense and effort"? > > 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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jan 10, 2007
From: "Dennis Shoup" <zenith601xl(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO
Enough already! On 1/9/07, W J R HAMILTON wrote: > > Folks, > The difference between the performance of TSO'd equipment and apparently > similar performance non-TSO'd equipment is not trivial. > > There are very good reasons for requiring RAIM in C-129a units, for most > of the non-TSO units, there is no or inadequate internal monitoring of the > position solution and navigation output, as the accident record shows, that > can be seriously fatal. > > Please, please, please, everybody, don't go flying IFR with non-TSO GPS > equipment, the database of demonstrated problems in the field is > hair-raising. > Just for starters, the integrity of the basic software (not the navigation > database) is unknown. > > A hunt around the Australian CASA web site will find some interesting > facts about incidents and accidents, world wide, using the wrong GPS in the > wrong place, or drop Ian Mallet, head of the GNSS Office at CASA an email, I > am certain he will provide you with some rather interesting references. > > Cheers, > Bill Hamilton > > > At 09:10 AM 10/01/2007, you wrote: > > > 1/9/2007 > > Hello Bret: > > 1) You wrote: "As you can see, the FAA has left a wide loophole with the > phrase "or equivalent"." > > The FAA has learned from experience that locking technical requirements in > bureaucratic documents in concrete can come back to bite them when > technology comes up with a better mouse trap that was not envisioned in the > document. So now-a-days they caveat their TSO's with a statement to the > effect that "if you can do it just as good, but maybe a little differently > we are willing to listen to your proposal." > > The process for a request to deviate is described in FAR 21.609 and the > loophole is not that wide. You might find that entire FAR 21 Subpart O > interesting reading. You can see that obtaining TSO approval and > manufacturing in accordance with that approval can be burdensome.** > > 2) You wrote: "It appears that, from my understanding, a GPS used for IFR > navigation must meet the minimum standard of RTCA/DO-208 in order to meet > the standard of TSO-C129 in order to be approved for IFR navigation." > > I agree. Also realize that there are other documents referenced in > TSO-C129a that may contain standards that the unit may have to meet. And the > FAA may chose to not incorporate all provisions of referenced documents into > the TSO. Some TSO's are absolutely infuriating -- they say nothing of > substance technically themselves, but instead reference several documents > (such as SAE documents) that cost a bunch of money for just three or four > pages. > > 3) You wrote: "Problem is, I don't see where the FAA requires the GPS to > be "certified". > > I agree. The words theFAA uses are "authorization (to perfom IFR > operations) requires equipment approved IAW TSO -C129" (version C129a is the > current version). Lawyers may not agree with me, but I bet the Garmin > marketing people looked at the FAA terminology of "authorization" and > "approved" and said "certified sounds better to us". > > 4) You wrote: "I may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin states > their GNS430 is "IFR Approach Certified", they are only stating that this > receiver meets the requirements of TSO-C129." > > I agree -- and also meeting all the pertinent references to TSO-C129a and > permitting the FAA oversight of Garmin's production of the GNS 430. (See FAR > 21.615). > > In addition now Garmin is stating that the GNS 430W meets all the > requirements of TSO 146a. > > OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. > > **PS: I worked with Lance Turk, founder of Vision Microsystems, on a > special size oil temperature probe for my TCM engine. He would not make the > probe for me because it would be non TSO'd and he did not want to > contaminate his FAA TSO approved production line. I wound up buying an empty > brass temperature probe body from Westach and sending it to Lance so that he > could have one of his technicians epoxy one of the Vision Microsystems > special oil temperature probe sensors into that brass body's cavity. Works > like a charm. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bret Smith" <smithhb(at)tds.net> > To: > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 3:19 PM > Subject: Re: GRT GPS TSO > > > OC, > > This is truly fascinating. > > You said > > 4) If you had only a non TSO'd GPS aboard and performed a specific > operation > that the AIM required a TSO approved GPS for then you would not be in > compliance with 1E and may be subject to a charge of careless or reckless > T > operation (see FAR 91.13). > > A brief perusal of the AIM revealed: (italics mine) > > 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, and the installation must be done in accordance with Advisory > Circular AC 20-138, Airworthiness Approval of Global Positioning System > (GPS) Navigation Equipment for Use as a VFR and IFR Supplemental Navigation > System, or Advisory Circular AC 20-130A, Airworthiness Approval of > Navigation or Flight Management Systems Integrating Multiple Navigation > Sensors, or equivalent. Equipment approved in accordance with TSO-C115a does > not meet the requirements of TSO-C129. > > The words "must be approved..." pretty much settles the issue with me. > Then they continue on with the phrase "or equivalent". What would be > equivalent to TSO-C129? So off I go to read TSO-C129.... > > > http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgTSO.nsf/0/e560cd9c6acf8ba186256dc700717e0f/$FILE/C129a.pdf > > I now know the requirements of any GPS to meet the TSO... > > "Airborne supplemental area navigation equipment using GPS that are > to be so identified and that are manufactured on or after the date of this > TSO must meet the minimum performance standard of Section 2, RTCA, > Inc. Document No. RTCA/DO-208, "Minimum Operational Performance Standards > for Airborne Supplemental Navigation Equipment Using Global Positioning > System (GPS)," dated July 1991." > > See the RTCA/DO-208 document here... > http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/cgsic/meetings/summaryrpts/31stmeeting/chesto/chesto.pdf > > As you can see, the FAA has left a wide loophole with the phrase "or > equivalent". It appears that, from my understanding, a GPS used for IFR > navigation must meet the minimum standard of RTCA/DO-208 in order to meet > the standard of TSO-C129 in order to be approved for IFR navigation. > > Problem is, I don't see where the FAA requires the GPS to be "certified". > I may be confused here but it seems that when Garmin states their GNS430 is > "IFR Approach Certified", they are only stating that this receiver meets the > requirements of TSO-C129. > > Your thoughts are appreciated. > > Bret > > > Avionics-List Email Forum - > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Avionics-List > - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS - > http://forums.matronics.com > > > *CONFIDENTIALITY & PRIVILEGE NOTICE > *W.J.R.Hamilton,Glenalmond Group Companies,Fighter Flights Internet > Services and Warbirds.Net. & < > GlenalmondEngineering(at)Gmail.com> > 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: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held
Date: Jan 31, 2007
1/31/2007 It will cost more and you won't have as much "roll your own satisfaction", but the IC-ANT-SB from ICOM is another way to skin this cat. See this web page. http://www.edmo.com/index.php?module=products&func=display&prod_id=19280&cat_id This has been mentioned previously on the list. Check with a local avionics shop to purchase or GOOGLE IC-ANT-SB for a catalog seller. OC -- The best investment we will ever make is in gathering knowledge. From: "Robert L. Nuckolls, III" <nuckollsr(at)cox.net> Subject: AeroElectric-List: Sharing ship's COMM antenna with the hand-held >I want to split the signal from my COMM antenna so I can plug >in a handheld when necessary. Can you tell me what type of >splitter I need, and possibly where to find one? BandC doesn't >seem to carry them. The least expensive and most reliable means by which you can share the airplane's external antenna with a hand held is to route the COMM antenna cable through the cockpit such that a pair of connectors . . . http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/crimpcf.jpg http://www.aeroelectric.com/Pictures/Connectors/s605cm.jpg come together within easy reach of the pilot. Coil up some excess length on the ANTENNA SIDE pigtail and make sure this piece of coax has the cable male connector on it. If the panel mounted radio becomes unavailable to you, open this joint and bring the antenna pigtail up to the hand held. You'll also find it useful to use TWO right angle adapters . . . http://tinyurl.com/2u3qzy . . . on the end of this pigtail. The coax can now pass up the back side of your hand held and make a 180-degree u-turn to mate with the radio's BNC connector at the top. Bob . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "ted scott" <teds532(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: owner list for bluemountain
Date: Feb 04, 2007
Is there an owners web site for Bluemountain avionics ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Terry Watson" <terry(at)tcwatson.com>
Subject: owner list for bluemountain
Date: Feb 04, 2007
The closest thing to a Blue Mountain Avionics user's website that I am aware of is the one at their Blue Mountain's website: http://www.bluemountainavionics.com/talk/ This is not the same thing as a user's website. Greg is in charge and he doesn't always take kindly to nor tolerate negative opinions. For the most part, it's ok. Terry _____ From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of ted scott Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:37 AM Subject: Avionics-List: owner list for bluemountain Is there an owners web site for Bluemountain avionics ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 13, 2007
Hi Gurus, It's been awhile, but I hope all is well with you all. I'm having audio issues with my new Becker 4201 #2 com and was wondering if you could help. The issue is the output audio from the radio whenever there is another radio switched into the same output. As soon as any other input is selected on the audio panel at the same time, the com#2 volume goes very very low and is overpowered. Sidetone during transmit seems un-affected as does the audio of the other sources selected - only the Com2 audio drops down. By itself...the radio sounds fine, and operates properly. The #1 com (iCom A200) works fine and is nice and loud with any number of inputs selected on the audio panel (KA-134). Adding additional inputs has little to no affect on com1 volume. It works great - as it should. According to the KA-134 schematics, the only thing it's doing with the phone outputs from the radios is mechanically switching them (no electronics) together to a single output line to the intercom. Because of this, I was wondering if the impedance differences of the radios are a problem. However, I have no real understand of the magic involved. They are as follows according to the respective docs: Com1 iCom - 500 ohms Com2 Becker - 600 ohms Eng mon - 560 ohms Nav KN-53 - 500 ohms I still puzzled why Com1 has no issues with any number of other inputs, and Com2 does. Any ideas? I have schematics for the KA-134 if you want to see it...but for this, it's just switches. Thanks for any help! James Redmon Berkut13 N97TX ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 14, 2007
From: xrayperformance(at)yahoo.com
Subject: Yahoo! Auto Response
Thank you for for contacting us. We'll try to get back to you within the next business day. For a quicker response, please leave your item number so that we can futher assist you as well. JDM TEAM appriciate your business.Business Hours: ********LOOK FOR LAMBO DOOR 90DEGREE KIT*********** http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=013&sspagename=STRK%3AMESE%3AIT&viewitem=&item=230092008705&rd=1,1 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Rippengal" <j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 14, 2007
It could be an impedance problem. But before doing anything else it would be as well to check that there is nothing peculiar about the com2 input. Change the Becker and Icom inputs round to make sure the problem either stays with com2 (in which case the problems is with the audio panel) or changes over to com1 (in which case the problem is with the Becker) It is rather poor practice to just mechanically parallel the outputs. Normally the audio panel would provide a simple op amp circuit which would enable the outputs to be combined without affecting each other at all. Are you sure it does just parallel them all up? If it does then I would expect any output to be attenuated noticeably when paralleling multiple others. John Subject: Avionics-List: Com audio issues > > Hi Gurus, > > It's been awhile, but I hope all is well with you all. > > I'm having audio issues with my new Becker 4201 #2 com and was wondering > if > you could help. > > The issue is the output audio from the radio whenever there is another > radio > switched into the same output. As soon as any other input is selected on > the audio panel at the same time, the com#2 volume goes very very low and > is > overpowered. Sidetone during transmit seems un-affected as does the audio > of > the other sources selected - only the Com2 audio drops down. By > itself...the radio sounds fine, and operates properly. > > The #1 com (iCom A200) works fine and is nice and loud with any number of > inputs selected on the audio panel (KA-134). Adding additional inputs has > little to no affect on com1 volume. It works great - as it should. > > According to the KA-134 schematics, the only thing it's doing with the > phone > outputs from the radios is mechanically switching them (no electronics) > together to a single output line to the intercom. Because of this, I was > wondering if the impedance differences of the radios are a problem. > However, I have no real understand of the magic involved. > > They are as follows according to the respective docs: > Com1 iCom - 500 ohms > Com2 Becker - 600 ohms > Eng mon - 560 ohms > Nav KN-53 - 500 ohms > > I still puzzled why Com1 has no issues with any number of other inputs, > and > Com2 does. > > Any ideas? I have schematics for the KA-134 if you want to see it...but > for > this, it's just switches. > > Thanks for any help! > > James Redmon > Berkut13 N97TX > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
In a message dated 2/14/2007 3:51:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, j.rippengal(at)cytanet.com.cy writes: It is rather poor practice to just mechanically parallel the outputs. Normally the audio panel would provide a simple op amp circuit which would enable the outputs to be combined without affecting each other at all. Are you sure it does just parallel them all up? If it does then I would expect any output to be attenuated noticeably when paralleling multiple others. John James, I agree with John. Actually the output impedance of each unit is probably not 500 or 600 ohms. It could be as small as 1 ohm or as large as 600 ohms, but designed to drive a 500 or 600 ohm load. If you put a resistor of about 200 ohms in series with each unit, then you give each one a chance to compete with the others. Dan Hopper RV-7A Retired EE ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Radio audio troubles
Date: Feb 14, 2007
Hi Gurus, It's been awhile, but I hope all is well with you all. I'm having audio issues with my new Becker 4201 #2 com and was wondering if you could help. The issue is the output audio from the radio whenever there is another radio switched into the same output. As soon as any other input is selected on the audio panel at the same time, the com#2 volume goes very very low and is overpowered. Sidetone during transmit seems un-affected as does the audio of the other sources selected - only the Com2 audio drops down. By itself...the radio sounds fine, and operates properly. The #1 com (iCom A200) works fine and is nice and loud with any number of inputs selected on the audio panel (KA-134). Adding additional inputs has little to no affect on com1 volume. It works great - as it should. According to the KA-134 schematics, the only thing it's doing with the phone outputs from the radios is mechanically switching them (no electronics) together to a single output line to the intercom. Because of this, I was wondering if the impedance differences of the radios are a problem. However, I have no real understanding of the magic involved here. They are as follows according to the respective docs: Com1 iCom - 500 ohms Com2 Becker - 600 ohms Eng mon - 560 ohms Nav KN-53 - 500 ohms RST Marker Receiver - unknown I am still puzzled why Com1 has no issues with any number of other inputs, and Com2 does....impedance differences and all. Any ideas? I have schematics for the KA-134 if you want to see it...but for this, it's just mechanical switches. Thanks for any help! James Redmon Berkut13 N97TX ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: Hiflier68 <hiflier68(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Radio audio troubles
Hi James, Mitch Goodrich I have Gary Kirby's old varieze.. I am in Austin for the next few days. Wondering if we can meet up?? YI'd enjoy spending some time with you, Gary, and Hopper. Find me at 813-356-9758 Thanks, Mitchell --- berkut13(at)berkut13.com wrote: > > Hi Gurus, > > It's been awhile, but I hope all is well with you all. > > I'm having audio issues with my new Becker 4201 #2 com and was wondering > if > you could help. > > The issue is the output audio from the radio whenever there is another > radio > switched into the same output. As soon as any other input is selected > on > the audio panel at the same time, the com#2 volume goes very very low > and is > overpowered. Sidetone during transmit seems un-affected as does the > audio of > the other sources selected - only the Com2 audio drops down. By > itself...the radio sounds fine, and operates properly. > > The #1 com (iCom A200) works fine and is nice and loud with any number > of > inputs selected on the audio panel (KA-134). Adding additional inputs > has > little to no affect on com1 volume. It works great - as it should. > > According to the KA-134 schematics, the only thing it's doing with the > phone > outputs from the radios is mechanically switching them (no electronics) > together to a single output line to the intercom. Because of this, I > was > wondering if the impedance differences of the radios are a problem. > However, I have no real understanding of the magic involved here. > > They are as follows according to the respective docs: > Com1 iCom - 500 ohms > Com2 Becker - 600 ohms > Eng mon - 560 ohms > Nav KN-53 - 500 ohms > RST Marker Receiver - unknown > > I am still puzzled why Com1 has no issues with any number of other > inputs, > and > Com2 does....impedance differences and all. > > Any ideas? I have schematics for the KA-134 if you want to see it...but > for > this, it's just mechanical switches. > > Thanks for any help! > > James Redmon > Berkut13 N97TX > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Suspect the Icom for low impedance as Dan descriped. I did had the same problem with a no audio panel (just switches) aircraft. When the Icom audio output was turned on, the audio of the other radio would be very low as well. The resistor as Dan descriped solved this issue. Best regards, Jesse > It is rather poor practice to just mechanically parallel the outputs. > Normally the audio panel would provide a simple op amp circuit which would > enable the outputs to be combined without affecting each other at all. Are > you sure it does just parallel them all up? If it does then I would expect > any output to be attenuated noticeably when paralleling multiple others. > John > James, > > I agree with John. Actually the output impedance of each unit is probably > not 500 or 600 ohms. It could be as small as 1 ohm or as large as 600 > ohms, but > > designed to drive a 500 or 600 ohm load. If you put a resistor of about > 200 > ohms in series with each unit, then you give each one a chance to compete > with > > the others. > > Dan Hopper > RV-7A > Retired EE > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Yup...switches with "ganged" inputs. See below link for the schematic. (300K .jpg) http://www.berkut13.com/dloads/ka-134.jpg I'm glad you attached Dan's reply, I never received it. I guess I can perform surgery on the input lines and install a 220-ohm resistor on each. Yeah, it's a hunk of junk King! I wish I had never installed it...but it's far worse to try to extract it and start over now. Anyone know if the VAL (same size) has a isolation circuit built in? It might become a "throw money at it" solution if the resistors don't help. What I don't understand is why Com1 (iCom) can be "switched" in with all the other inputs with no adverse affects. But, the com2 (Becker) can't - ANY input source that's switches in takes the Becker to almost zero and, of course, when the volume is turned all the way up it's all distorted. Add all you want to the iCom and the blend in just fine. Is that what John is suggesting might be cause by the iCom possibly having a significantly lower impedance than the other radios? I can also tell you that the iCom's output is very robust compared to the other radios. It's quite loud, deep and clear with very little turn of the volume knob - very sensitive. Not sure that says anything other that it's got a good amp on it, but I'll put that out there too. Again, thanks for all the help! James ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI" <jessevli(at)zeelandnet.nl> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 11:22 AM Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Com audio issues > > > Suspect the Icom for low impedance as Dan descriped. I did had the same > problem with a no audio panel (just switches) aircraft. When the Icom > audio output was turned on, the audio of the other radio would be very low > as well. The resistor as Dan descriped solved this issue. > > Best regards, > > Jesse >> It is rather poor practice to just mechanically parallel the outputs. >> Normally the audio panel would provide a simple op amp circuit which >> would >> enable the outputs to be combined without affecting each other at all. >> Are >> you sure it does just parallel them all up? If it does then I would >> expect >> any output to be attenuated noticeably when paralleling multiple others. >> John >> James, >> >> I agree with John. Actually the output impedance of each unit is >> probably >> not 500 or 600 ohms. It could be as small as 1 ohm or as large as 600 >> ohms, but >> >> designed to drive a 500 or 600 ohm load. If you put a resistor of about >> 200 >> ohms in series with each unit, then you give each one a chance to compete >> with >> >> the others. >> >> Dan Hopper >> RV-7A >> Retired EE ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: AeroElectric-List: Radio audio troubles
Date: Feb 15, 2007
> Actually, those "output impedance" values are completely > bogus. See: > > http://aeroelectric.com/articles/Rev11/18Audio_R11.pdf > > The true output impedance of any of these devices > is considerably lower than the values stated. What > they really mean to say is, "This product will produce > rated output performance when presented with xxx ohms > of LOAD. I forwarded this to the office. It'll take a bit to read and absorb it. > If the mental image I have from reading your words is > coincident with your own, then it appears that something > may be amiss in the audio isolation amplifier. Amiss?...yup..there isn't one. So, that should be "amiss-ing" ;-) > Try swapping affected radios to different inputs to > the amplifier and see if the symptoms swap with the radios > or stay common to the switches on the amplifier. I sent an email with a link to the KA-134 schematic...it's just switches for these circuits to the "phones output". -James ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)AOL.COM
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
James, In looking at the schematic, I see the isolating resistors in the resistor pack with 11 resistors in dashed lines. I can't make out the value, but I'd bet that they are 600 ohms or possibly 1K ohm. Are you sure that the switches connect the output of your problem audio source directly to another output? Maybe I have missed something. Dan Hopper RV-7A Retired EE In a message dated 2/15/2007 3:09:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, berkut13(at)berkut13.com writes: Yup...switches with "ganged" inputs. See below link for the schematic. (300K .jpg) http://www.berkut13.com/dloads/ka-134.jpg I'm glad you attached Dan's reply, I never received it. I guess I can perform surgery on the input lines and install a 220-ohm resistor on each. Yeah, it's a hunk of junk King! I wish I had never installed it...but it's far worse to try to extract it and start over now. Anyone know if the VAL (same size) has a isolation circuit built in? It might become a "throw money at it" solution if the resistors don't help. What I don't understand is why Com1 (iCom) can be "switched" in with all the other inputs with no adverse affects. But, the com2 (Becker) can't - ANY input source that's switches in takes the Becker to almost zero and, of course, when the volume is turned all the way up it's all distorted. Add all you want to the iCom and the blend in just fine. Is that what John is suggesting might be cause by the iCom possibly having a significantly lower impedance than the other radios? I can also tell you that the iCom's output is very robust compared to the other radios. It's quite loud, deep and clear with very little turn of the volume knob - very sensitive. Not sure that says anything other that it's got a good amp on it, but I'll put that out there too. Again, thanks for all the help! James ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Hopperdhh(at)aol.com
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
James, I see what I was missing! I didn't see the "headphone out" at the top right. My suggestion would be to use the speaker output to drive your headphones. Then all the audio inputs go through the isolation resistor pack. The only difference is that you leave the "SPKR" button pushed in all the time. You won't have a cabin speaker anyway, will you? You may have to use a pad (or resistor to each headset jack) to lower the level if the output is too much -- that is the volume control too sensitive. Does this solve the problem? Dan Hopper In a message dated 2/15/2007 3:29:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, Hopperdhh(at)aol.com writes: James, In looking at the schematic, I see the isolating resistors in the resistor pack with 11 resistors in dashed lines. I can't make out the value, but I'd bet that they are 600 ohms or possibly 1K ohm. Are you sure that the switches connect the output of your problem audio source directly to another output? Maybe I have missed something. Dan Hopper RV-7A Retired EE In a message dated 2/15/2007 3:09:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, berkut13(at)berkut13.com writes: Yup...switches with "ganged" inputs. See below link for the schematic. (300K .jpg) http://www.berkut13.com/dloads/ka-134.jpg I'm glad you attached Dan's reply, I never received it. I guess I can perform surgery on the input lines and install a 220-ohm resistor on each. Yeah, it's a hunk of junk King! I wish I had never installed it...but it's far worse to try to extract it and start over now. Anyone know if the VAL (same size) has a isolation circuit built in? It might become a "throw money at it" solution if the resistors don't help. What I don't understand is why Com1 (iCom) can be "switched" in with all the other inputs with no adverse affects. But, the com2 (Becker) can't - ANY input source that's switches in takes the Becker to almost zero and, of course, when the volume is turned all the way up it's all distorted. Add all you want to the iCom and the blend in just fine. Is that what John is suggesting might be cause by the iCom possibly having a significantly lower impedance than the other radios? I can also tell you that the iCom's output is very robust compared to the other radios. It's quite loud, deep and clear with very little turn of the volume knob - very sensitive. Not sure that says anything other that it's got a good amp on it, but I'll put that out there too. Again, thanks for all the help! James ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 15, 2007
As with all things... check the Installation manual for both the radio and the audio panel. Those manuals should give you not only the pin outs for the interconnects but also the levels for those interconnects. The other thing you will want to have a look at is the interconnect diagram that should have been drawn up at the time the equipment was installed. Some will keep this in the aircraft technical logs, others will have separate files. Any way check the interconnect diagram to make sure that there hasn't been a mistake made in wiring up the various connectors. As a hint you already know the problem is in the input to the audio panel or the out put of the Icom. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Jesse Kluijfhout, PE1RUI > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 1:52 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Avionics-List: Re: Com audio issues > > > PE1RUI" > > Suspect the Icom for low impedance as Dan descriped. I did > had the same > problem with a no audio panel (just switches) aircraft. When > the Icom audio > output was turned on, the audio of the other radio would be > very low as > well. The resistor as Dan descriped solved this issue. > > Best regards, > > Jesse > > It is rather poor practice to just mechanically parallel > the outputs. > > Normally the audio panel would provide a simple op amp > circuit which would > > enable the outputs to be combined without affecting each > other at all. Are > > you sure it does just parallel them all up? If it does then > I would expect > > any output to be attenuated noticeably when paralleling > multiple others. > > John > > James, > > > > I agree with John. Actually the output impedance of each > unit is probably > > not 500 or 600 ohms. It could be as small as 1 ohm or as > large as 600 > > ohms, but > > > > designed to drive a 500 or 600 ohm load. If you put a > resistor of about > > 200 > > ohms in series with each unit, then you give each one a > chance to compete > > with > > > > the others. > > > > Dan Hopper > > RV-7A > > Retired EE > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 15, 2007
> I see what I was missing! I didn't see the "headphone out" at the top > right. > > My suggestion would be to use the speaker output to drive your headphones. > Then all the audio inputs go through the isolation resistor pack. The > only > difference is that you leave the "SPKR" button pushed in all the time. > You won't > have a cabin speaker anyway, will you? Actually, I do have a cabin speaker. ;-) > You may have to use a pad (or resistor to each headset jack) to lower the > level if the output is too much -- that is the volume control too > sensitive. Oh, the volume on the iCom is not "too much" as much as it is just much louder than the other radios. It can all be adjusted with the various volume controls but I just wanted to make it known that I barely turn the iCom volume up as compared to the others. -James ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 15, 2007
> As with all things... check the Installation manual for both the radio and > the audio panel. Those manuals should give you not only the pin outs for > the interconnects but also the levels for those interconnects. The other > thing you will want to have a look at is the interconnect diagram that > should have been drawn up at the time the equipment was installed. Some > will keep this in the aircraft technical logs, others will have separate > files. Any way check the interconnect diagram to make sure that there > hasn't been a mistake made in wiring up the various connectors. As a hint > you already know the problem is in the input to the audio panel or the out > put of the Icom. > > Noel Oh boy...did I forget to say that this is an Experimental and I outsourced the panel integration to a local shop...PRIOR to installation into the aircraft. There are no "integration manuals" or even "levels for those interconnects". I do have the pin-outs for the panel and radios individually and have double and triple checked those. Remember, the Becker works and sounds great when it's the only thing selected on the audio panel - aka the hook-ups should be OK. Com1 (iCom) works great with any of the other radio sources mixed in. Only the comm2 (Becker) drops it's audio when any other source is switched in. Confusing, huh. -James ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 15, 2007
Referring to the schematic for the KA-134 in previous email: >>Are you sure that the switches connect the output of your problem >>audio source directly to another output? Maybe I have missed something. > I see what I was missing! I didn't see the "headphone out" at the top > right. Yeah...and the bloody thing is marketed as having an isolation amp built in. That's true...but what they don't tell you is that it's for the cabin speaker and ramp hail ONLY! Grrrrr!! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 15, 2007
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
>Oh boy...did I forget to say that this is an Experimental and I outsourced the panel integration to a local shop...PRIOR to installation into the aircraft. There are no "integration manuals" or even "levels for those interconnects". When I last was chief guru of a radio shop (circa 1982) the FAA would come by and inspect the paperwork. We were told NEVER to include a detailed installation schematic. Their idea was that it was "safer" for the shop to simply say "installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions". Safer to them meant "less likely to be sued." I made up the drawings anyway but aircraft owners never kept them. Adding audio with resistors is an old technique that made sense when vacuum tube amplifiers were the only thing around. The idea is that every audio source has the same output resistance, usually 600 ohms. The headphones also had a standardized resistance, 600 ohms. That way each audio output connected to the phone jack drove a load that was the headphones in parallel with all of the other inputs which were being driven backwards. It is wasteful of audio power but cheap and reliable. With transistor op-amps it is easy to create an audio drive that has nearly zero output resistance. If you do that it's easy to drive that 600 ohm, or lower, load and manufacturers will tell you that the output is suitable for a 600 ohm load while being silent about the output resistance of the device. If it is actually zero and you hook it up the old way everything else is trying to drive a zero ohm load backwards. It won't work. You need to 1) use a mixing amplifier or 2) add a series resistor to provide the missing output resistance. Speaker drives are typically arranged to drive 4 or 8 ohm loads and may also have that zero resistance output when transistorized. Using a speaker output for the old style resistive mixing will short circuit the 600 ohm impedance of the headphone line either way. Don't do that. -- --> Life begins at ovulation. Ladies should endeavor to get every young life fertilized. <-- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 16, 2007
>From what you say the problem is definitely inside the audio panel. I say this because of the fact that the com2 is good when selected alone. If you get time I recommend drawing up an interconnect diagram yourself. (Rainy day activity) It makes change outs much faster and there will be less chance of confusion if you ever want to add say an Ipod. Also if you ever sell the plane, right after cows learn to fly, the next person will be able to see exactly how the avionics were installed. Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of berkut13(at)berkut13.com > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:14 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Com audio issues > > > > > As with all things... check the Installation manual for > both the radio and > > the audio panel. Those manuals should give you not only > the pin outs for > > the interconnects but also the levels for those > interconnects. The other > > thing you will want to have a look at is the interconnect > diagram that > > should have been drawn up at the time the equipment was > installed. Some > > will keep this in the aircraft technical logs, others will > have separate > > files. Any way check the interconnect diagram to make sure > that there > > hasn't been a mistake made in wiring up the various > connectors. As a hint > > you already know the problem is in the input to the audio > panel or the out > > put of the Icom. > > > > Noel > > > Oh boy...did I forget to say that this is an Experimental and > I outsourced > the panel integration to a local shop...PRIOR to installation > into the > aircraft. There are no "integration manuals" or even "levels > for those > interconnects". I do have the pin-outs for the panel and radios > individually and have double and triple checked those. > > Remember, the Becker works and sounds great when it's the only thing > selected on the audio panel - aka the hook-ups should be OK. > Com1 (iCom) > works great with any of the other radio sources mixed in. > Only the comm2 > (Becker) drops it's audio when any other source is switched in. > > Confusing, huh. > > -James > > > > > Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.007). http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Noel Loveys" <noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca>
Subject: Re: Com audio issues
Date: Feb 16, 2007
Terrible to live in a country where the main consideration is how, not if, you will be sued. Unfortunately there are a lot of low life lawyers and politicians who are dragging this country in that direction too. Generally what I did on the few, emphasis on few, installs I did was put the interconnect diagram in the technical log. Most pilots never look there. The corollary of what the FAA inspectors said was also true. If you have an interconnect as to how the radio was installed you have evidence that you didn't mess up (PG) and the owner, if he ever looks at it will realize if he makes changes his possible claims to warrantee will also be out the window. When I was in school and afterwards I even photographed installations so I could tell if anyone fooled with them. Copy what you are saying about the Op Amps. Best thing since sliced bread .... BUT!!!! Noel > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-avionics-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf > Of Doug McNutt > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:34 PM > To: avionics-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Avionics-List: Re: Com audio issues > > > > > >Oh boy...did I forget to say that this is an Experimental > and I outsourced the panel integration to a local > shop...PRIOR to installation into the aircraft. There are no > "integration manuals" or even "levels for those interconnects". > > When I last was chief guru of a radio shop (circa 1982) the > FAA would come by and inspect the paperwork. We were told > NEVER to include a detailed installation schematic. Their > idea was that it was "safer" for the shop to simply say > "installed in accordance with manufacturer's instructions". > Safer to them meant "less likely to be sued." I made up the > drawings anyway but aircraft owners never kept them. > > Adding audio with resistors is an old technique that made > sense when vacuum tube amplifiers were the only thing around. > The idea is that every audio source has the same output > resistance, usually 600 ohms. The headphones also had a > standardized resistance, 600 ohms. That way each audio output > connected to the phone jack drove a load that was the > headphones in parallel with all of the other inputs which > were being driven backwards. It is wasteful of audio power > but cheap and reliable. > > With transistor op-amps it is easy to create an audio drive > that has nearly zero output resistance. If you do that it's > easy to drive that 600 ohm, or lower, load and manufacturers > will tell you that the output is suitable for a 600 ohm load > while being silent about the output resistance of the device. > If it is actually zero and you hook it up the old way > everything else is trying to drive a zero ohm load backwards. > It won't work. You need to 1) use a mixing amplifier or 2) > add a series resistor to provide the missing output resistance. > > Speaker drives are typically arranged to drive 4 or 8 ohm > loads and may also have that zero resistance output when > transistorized. Using a speaker output for the old style > resistive mixing will short circuit the 600 ohm impedance of > the headphone line either way. Don't do that. > > -- > > --> Life begins at ovulation. Ladies should endeavor to get > every young life fertilized. <-- > > > > Checked by PC Tools AntiVirus (3.1.0.10 - 9.061.007). http://www.pctools.com/anti-virus/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: <berkut13(at)berkut13.com>
Subject: Com issues - resolved
Date: Feb 16, 2007
Well gang...it's fixed. I added 150ohm resistors to all input audio leads into the panel. Everything is living together quite nicely now. I guess something in the combination was not playing well with the new radio. However, there was one wild card that might also have something to do with it. While I was removing, moving, installing, and re-installing the pins in the 134's connector, one of the ground leads (mic I think) broke off a pin. I was forced to strip and crimp a new molex pin on there and re-secure. This was done in the same operation as the resistors. After all that, the audio was loud and clear with all radios mixed in, regardless of the combination. I'm not convinced this was the issue, since the radio did work correctly by itself. So...was it the resistors?...was it a bad ground?...was it a gremlin? Personally, I don't care anymore...it's fixed! Thanks for all the help, everyone. Nothing like beating your head against the wall in a cold hangar. James Redmon Berkut #013 N97TX http://www.berkut13.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Feb 17, 2007
From: Doug McNutt <douglist(at)macnauchtan.com>
Subject: Re: Com issues - resolved


August 12, 2006 - February 18, 2007

Avionics-Archive.digest.vol-al